Consider Incorporating Rule Imposing Obligation On Accused To Disclose His Involvement In Any Other Previously Registered Criminal Case In Bail Applications : Supreme Court To High Courts
The appellant, being a Judicial Officer of the District Judge Cadre in the judicial services of the State of Rajasthan, had approached the Apex Court assailing the strictures passed against him in an order passed by a Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court.
Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Sandeep Mehta, Supreme Court
While expunging the remarks made by the Rajasthan High Court against a Judicial Officer, the Supreme Court has held that every High Court should consider incorporating a provision in the respective High Court Rules and/or Criminal Side Rules as it would impose an obligation on the accused to make disclosures regarding his/her involvement in any other criminal cases previously registered.
The appellant, being a Judicial Officer of the District Judge Cadre in the judicial services of the State of Rajasthan, had approached the Apex Court assailing the strictures passed against him in an order passed by a Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court.
The 3-Judge Bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Sandeep Mehta said, “We feel that every High Court in the country should consider incorporating a similar provision in the respective High Court Rules and/or Criminal Side Rules as it would impose an obligation on the accused to make disclosures regarding his/her involvement in any other criminal case(s) previously registered.”
Senior Advocate M. Balasubramaniam represented the Appellant while AAG Sansriti Pathak represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
In the year 2022, an FIR was registered against various accused persons including Sethu @ Angrej and Sethu @ Haddi, for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 323, 341, 325, 307, 427 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Sethu @ Haddi & Sethu @ Angrej were arrested. The High Court granted bail to Sethu @ Haddi and observed that the allegation of inflicting the lethal injury was against the accused Sethu @ Angrej from whom the case of the applicant therein (Sethu @ Haddi) was different. The accused Sethu @ Angrej moved an application for bail, but the same was dismissed.Three separate bail applications were listed before the appellant-Judicial Officer.
The appellant-Judicial Officer, applying the principle of parity, granted bail to all accused persons. However, while considering the bail applications of accused Sethu @ Angrej, the appellant-Judicial Officer omitted to consider his criminal antecedents. The complainant moved for cancellation of bail granted to the accused, Sethu @ Angrej and the same came to be allowed with the observation that the counsel for the accused Sethu @ Angrej misled the Court while seeking bail on his behalf.
Being aggrieved, the accused approached the High Court. While rejecting the bail application of the accused, the High Court passed strictures against the appellant, observing that he, being a Judicial Officer, had passed the order granting bail to the accused in a grossly inappropriate and cavalier manner while ignoring the criminal record of the said accused. It was directed that the copy of the impugned order be placed before the Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court for perusal. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant approached the Apex Court.
Reasoning
Referring to the judgment in Re: ‘K’, A Judicial Officer (2001), the Bench observed, “Suffice it to say that the law is well-settled by a catena of decisions rendered by this Court that High Courts should ordinarily refrain from passing strictures against the judicial officers while deciding matters on the judicial side.”
The Bench noted that the strictures and/or the scathing observations were made by the Single Judge to the detriment of the appellant Judicial Officer without providing him any opportunity of explanation or showing cause. “In addition, thereto, we find that the entire foundation of the High Court’s order seems to be based on the judgment in the case of Jugal (supra) which stands reversed by this Court in the case of Ayub Khan v. State of Rajasthan vide judgment dated 17th December, 2024”, it said.
Thus, holding that the strictures passed by the High Court against the appellant-Judicial Officer were uncalled for, the Bench expunged the same.
Before concluding the matter, the Bench made a reference to Rule 5 of Chapter 1-A(b) Volume-V of the rules and orders of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which says that in every bail application presented to the High Court the petitioner shall state whether a similar application has or has not been made to the Supreme Court, and if made, shall state the result thereof.
Thus, asking the High Courts to incorporate a similar provision which would make the accused obligated to disclose previously registered criminal cases, the Bench directed that a copy of the order be communicated to the Registrar Generals of all the High Courts so that incorporation of a similar Rule in the respective Rules can be considered, if such provision does not exist from earlier.
Cause Title: Kaushal Singh v. The State of Rajashtan (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 871)
Appearance
Appellant: Senior Advocate M. Balasubramaniam, Advocate Javed Khan, AOR Vanya Gupta
Respondent: AAG Sansriti Pathak, Advocates Shagufa Khan, Aman Prasad, AOR Nidhi Jaswal