Pending/Decided Bail Applications Should Be Mentioned: Supreme Court Issues Directions To Streamline Bail Proceedings
The Supreme Court issued directives on the mandatory inclusion of details of pending and decided bail applications in bail applications.
This directive comes in the context of a plea dismissed by the Court, wherein an Individual faced consequences for concealing information about previous bail applications.
The Court noted that the directions were aimed at streamlining legal proceedings and preventing inconsistencies in bail applications for pending trials or sentence suspension.
The Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Rajesh Bindal observed that the case constituted another instance wherein an attempt had been made to taint the integrity of the administration of justice.
Advocate Pranaya Kumar Mohapatra appeared for the Appellant and Advocate Prakash Ranjan Nayak appeared for the State.
On February 3, 2022, the Appellant faced charges under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, leading to the filing of an FIR. Subsequently, their initial bail application was declined on March 6, 2023. In response, the Appellant filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court challenging the rejection. Notably, the co-accused obtained bail from a different judge on January 17, 2023, unbeknownst to the ongoing SLP. The Appellant's subsequent bail application faced rejection on September 15, 2023.
Meanwhile, without informing the Supreme Court, the Appellant filed a second bail application before the High Court on September 21, 2023. The Supreme Court became aware of the second bail order only on November 8, 2023. The Appellant's release came to light on December 6, 2023, prompting an inquiry. In an affidavit on December 11, 2023, the State asserted that their counsel was unaware of the rejection of the first bail and the SLP. This led the Supreme Court to seek an explanation from the High Court.
The submitted affidavit included a report from the State Counsel, revealing a lack of disclosure in the Appellant's second bail application regarding the filing of the initial bail application and, significantly, the pending SLP before the Supreme Court. The report emphasized the absence of information about the earlier bail application's rejection and the SLP filing during the hearing. The State Counsel, lacking instructions from the Inspector Incharge, emphasized this non-disclosure.
Responding to the Court's directive on December 6, 2023, the High Court submitted a report, including comments from Judge 'B.' The original file of the Appellant's second bail application was included. It was revealed that during the hearing, the Court was unaware of the SLP's pendency before the Supreme Court, despite the notice issued on September 22, 2023.
Additionally, the report annexed a copy of Standing Order No.2 of 2023, a modification of the previous Standing Order No.1 of 2020 issued on May 21, 2023. The Standing Order pertained to the listing of bail applications under Sections 438 and 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
In essence, the Apex Court issued a directive for the Stamp Reporting Section to verify the disposal of any previous bail applications related to the same FIR. This section was tasked with providing comprehensive details, and subsequent bail applications were to be scheduled before the same Judge. However, in the absence or superannuation of that Judge, an alternate system was established.
The Court noted that a scrutiny of the paper book in the second bail application revealed a report appended by the Registry, referencing two prior bail applications in the concerned FIR. The Appellant's first bail application was disposed of on March 6, 2023, and the co-accused Gangesh Kumar Thakur's application was resolved on January 17, 2023. While Standing Order No.2 of 2023 mandated the Registry to attach all orders from earlier bail applications by various accused in the same FIR, the order rejecting the Appellant's prior bail application did not form part of this bail application before the High Court. Only the order dated January 17, 2023, about the co-accused Gangesh Kumar Thakur's bail application, was attached.
Additionally, the Court noted that the Appellant, in both the list of dates and events and the body of the bail application, conspicuously omitted any mention of the dismissal of his earlier bail application by the High Court and the filing of the SLP before this Court. During the ongoing proceedings before this court, a fresh bail application was filed, not only before the Trial Court but also before the High Court, which subsequently granted bail to the Appellant. Notably, the High Court's order did not indicate that it was the Appellant's second bail application. Due to the unavailability of a copy of the bail application filed before the Sessions Judge, this Court refrained from commenting on its contents. Furthermore, the Bench noted that in the order dated January 17, 2023, that granted bail to the co-accused Gangesh Kumar Thakur there was no mention of another bail application by the co-accused pending in the same FIR.
Therefore, the Apex Court noted, “in our opinion, to avoid any confusion in future it would be appropriate to mandatorily mention in the application(s) filed for grant of bail:
(1) Details and copies of order(s) passed in the earlier bail application(s) filed by the petitioner which have been already decided.
(2) Details of any bail application(s) filed by the petitioner, which is pending either in any court, below the court in question or the higher court, and if none is pending, a clear statement to that effect has to be made. This court has already directed vide order passed in Pradhani Jani’s case (supra) that all bail applications filed by the different accused in the same FIR should be listed before the same Judge except in cases where the Judge has superannuated or has been transferred or otherwise incapacitated to hear the matter. The system needs to be followed meticulously to avoid any discrepancies in the orders. In case it is mentioned on the top of the bail application or any other place which is clearly visible, that the application for bail is either first, second or third and so on, so that it is convenient for the court to appreciate the arguments in that light. If this fact is mentioned in the order, it will enable the next higher court to appreciate the arguments in that light.
(3) The registry of the court should also annex a report generated from the system about decided or pending bail application(s) in the crime case in question. The same system needs to be followed even in the case of private complaints as all cases filed in the trial courts are assigned specific numbers (CNR No.), even if no FIR number is there.
(4) It should be the duty of the Investigating Officer/any officer assisting the State Counsel in court to apprise him of the order(s), if any, passed by the court with reference to different bail applications or other proceedings in the same crime case. And the counsel appearing for the parties have to conduct themselves truly like officers of the Court”.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Appeal and imposed a nominal cost of ₹10,000 on the Appellant.
Cause Title: Kusha Duruka v State Of Odisha (2024 INSC 46)
Appearance:
Respondent: Balaram Nayak and Chaitanya Chauhan, Advocates
