SUPREME COURT CRITICIZES 'CLEVER TACTIC' OF BUNDLING BAIL APPLICATIONS WITH CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES:

In a recent hearing, the Supreme Court of India declined to consider the bail application of an accused individual while strongly criticizing the growing trend among litigants of filing combined or "package" petitions. Such petitions merge requests for bail or quashing of criminal proceedings with challenges to the constitutional validity of a statute, primarily as a strategy to bypass the lower courts and approach the apex court directly.

The matter came before a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi. The petitioner, Pradhyumansinh Pravinsinh Rathod, had filed a writ petition seeking two distinct reliefs: the quashing of a First Information Report (FIR) registered against him, along with consequential pre-arrest bail, and a declaration that the Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2020, was unconstitutional.

During the proceedings, the bench expressed disapproval of this approach. The Chief Justice observed that the court would not encourage composite petitions of this nature that reach the Supreme Court directly. He described the tactic as an attempt to sidestep the trial court and the concerned High Court, allowing petitioners to escalate matters straight to the highest judicial forum. The court viewed this as an improper circumvention of the established hierarchical judicial process.

Recognizing that the two prayers in the petition, quashing of the FIR with bail, and the constitutional challenge—were fundamentally different in nature and could not be adjudicated together in a single writ petition, the bench adopted a practical approach. It permitted the petitioner's counsel to withdraw the existing petition. The court granted liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition limited solely to questioning the validity of the Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2020.

As for the criminal aspects of the case, namely the prayer for quashing the FIR and seeking pre-arrest bail, the bench directed the petitioner to approach the appropriate jurisdictional court, which would typically be the trial court or the High Court having territorial jurisdiction over the matter. To facilitate this transition and prevent any immediate prejudice to the petitioner, the court provided interim protection from arrest for a period of two weeks. This temporary safeguard was intended to give the petitioner sufficient time to file the necessary applications before the competent lower court.

The court's order emphasized the principle that distinct reliefs requiring different procedural paths should not be clubbed together merely for procedural convenience or to expedite access to higher forums. By discouraging such bundled petitions, the Supreme Court reiterated the importance of adhering to the judicial hierarchy, ensuring that trial courts and High Courts first have the opportunity to examine factual and preliminary legal issues, particularly those involving bail and quashing of criminal proceedings.

This observation aligns with the court's broader concern about docket management and preventing the apex court from being overburdened with matters that can be effectively resolved at lower levels. The decision serves as a reminder to the bar that while creative advocacy is permissible, attempts to bypass established procedures through tactical packaging of unrelated claims will not be viewed favorably.

Ultimately, the bench's directive balanced the petitioner's immediate needs with the larger interest of maintaining procedural discipline. By granting limited interim relief and clear liberties for separate filings, the court ensured that neither the criminal proceedings nor the constitutional challenge would be unduly delayed, while upholding the integrity of the multi-tiered judicial system.