JUDGMENT : 1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed seeking a direction to place this case before a particular Bench in pursuance of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 31.07.2023 in SLP (Crl.) No. 7203 of 2023 and order dated 12.12.2023 passed in SLP (Crl.) No. 15585 of 2023. 2. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the instant interlocutory application has been filed only on misleading ground in order to avoid this Bench as it would be evident from paragraphs-6, 7 and 8 of the instant I.A. Reason for such submission is that in other cases, i.e., Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 767 of 2022; W.P.(Cr.) No. 443 of 2022 and; W.P.(Cr.) No. 226 of 2023 the issue of bail has already been dealt with by a Bench presided over by one of the members (Mr. Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) of this Bench. 3. It has been submitted that the aforesaid orders have not been brought in the said interlocutory application. It has further been submitted by making reference of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 55 of 2025 (Shekhar Prasad Mahto @ Shekhar Kushwaha vs. The Registrar General Jharkhand High Court & Anr.) that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clarified the legal position by the aforesaid order dated 07.02.2025 passed therein. 4. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. This Court, after taking into consideration that the order has been passed by this Court also with respect to the issue of bail application of the co-accused persons in which one of us (Mr. Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) was a member but it appears from the interlocutory application that the order has only been appended having been passed by another Bench. 6. The order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 31.07.2023 in SLP (Crl.) No. 7203 of 2023 and order dated 12.12.2023 passed in SLP (Crl.) No. 15585 of 2023 has been clarified vide order dated 07.02.2025 passed in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 55 of 2025. The relevant part of the said order passed in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 55 of 2025 needs to be referred herein which reads as under: “ 9. The relevant part of the said order passed in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 55 of 2025 needs to be referred herein which reads as under: “ 9. We are, therefore, of the view that if the aforesaid direction is followed universally, it may lead to disruption of benches inasmuch as the learned judge who had initially heard the bail application of one of the accused, may have become a part of some Division Bench when a bail application arising out of the same FIR is filed by another accused. 10. We, therefore, clarify that if in a particular High Court, the bail applications are assigned to different single Judge/Bench, in that event, all the applications arising out of same FIR should be placed before one learned Judge. 11. This would ensure that there is a consistency in the views taken by the learned judge in different bail applications arising out of the same FIR. 12. However, if on account of change of the roster, the learned judge who was earlier dealing with the bail matters is not taking up the bail matters, the aforesaid directions would not be applicable.” 7. This Court, in view of the aforesaid clarificatory order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, is of the view that the present interlocutory application is fit to be dismissed. 8. Accordingly, the instant interlocutory application is dismissed. Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 09 of 2024: 9. Mr. Niranjan Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the matter is to be argued by Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, learned counsel but due to some personal difficulty he is not in a position to argue the matter even through virtual mode, therefore, prayer for adjournment has been made. 10. Such submission has been made in presence of learned counsel for the respondent. 11. This Court, considering the said submission, is adjourning the matter to be listed on 18.02.2025 making it clear that no adjournment shall be granted on that date.