Make Rules Mandating Disclosure Of Antecedents & Earlier Pleas By Accused In Bail Applications: SC

It is absolutely most refreshing to note that while taking the most commendable step in the direction of transparency, fairness and accountability, the Supreme Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Kaushal Singh vs State of Rajasthan in Criminal Appeal (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No(s). 2254 of 2025) and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2025 INSC 871 in the exercise of its criminal appellate jurisdiction that was pronounced most recently on July 18, 2025 has suggested and called upon all the High Courts all across the nation to incorporate a mandatory rule that accused persons should mandatorily mention in their bail applications the earlier bail applications, if any, filed by them and also their criminal antecedents. It must be mentioned that the top court while laying bare the reason behind this held that such a rule would aid judicial scrutiny and ensure that bail applications are not decided in isolation of an accused’s criminal proceedings. It also merits mentioning that the top court also applauded the most laudable rule that had been made by Punjab and Haryana High Court in this direction.

Quite significantly, the Bench propounds in para 22 that, “Before parting, we would like to state that, accounting for the criminal antecedents of the accused while considering the bail applications has been the subject matter of concern for Courts across the country. The rules and orders of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, to be specific, Rule 5 of Chapter 1-A(b) Volume-V specifically provide as below:

“5. Bail applications. - In every application for bail presented to the High Court the petitioner shall state whether similar application has or has not been made to the Supreme Court, and if made shall state the result thereof. The petitioner/applicant shall also mention whether he/she is/was involved in any other criminal case or not. If yes, particulars and decisions thereof. An application which does not contain this information shall be placed before the bench with the necessary information.””

Most significantly, the Bench encapsulates in para 23 what constitutes the cornerstone and heartbeat of this notable judgment which while applauding rule made by Punjab and Haryana High Court and worthy of emulating by all High Courts postulates that, “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.”

Equally significant is that the Bench further directs in para 24 holding that, “It is, therefore, provided that a copy of this order shall 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.”

By the way, the Apex Court Bench ruled so while expunging the strictures that had been passed by the Rajasthan High Court against a judicial officer in relation to his decision in a bail application. While referring to various precedents, the Bench reiterated that High Courts should refrain from making adverse comments against judicial officers in respect of the decisions taken by them. Very rightly so!

At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by Hon’ble Mr Justice Sandeep Mehta for a Bench of the Apex Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Vikram Nath, Hon’ble Mr Justice Sanjay Karol and himself sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “Heard” and then in para 2 that, “Leave granted”.”

To put things in perspective, the Bench while elaborating on the facts of the case envisages in para 3 disclosing that, “The appellant, being a Judicial Officer of the District Judge Cadre (Hereinafter referred to as the “appellant-Judicial Officer”) in the judicial services of the State of Rajasthan, has approached this Court through this appeal by special leave in order to assail the strictures passed against him in order dated 3rd May, 2024 (Hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”) passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur (Hereinafter referred to as the “High Court”) while deciding the S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4677 of 2024.”

As things stands, the Bench specifies in para 5 that, “First Information Report (For short ‘FIR’)  No. 224 of 2022 was registered at Police Station Gegal, District Ajmer on 23rd October, 2022 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 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (For short ‘IPC’).”

As it turned out, the Bench enunciates in para 6 that, “Sethu @ Haddi was arrested on 21st November, 2022 whereas Sethu @ Angrej was arrested on 25th November, 2022 in connection with the aforesaid FIR. The High Court granted bail to Sethu @ Haddi vide order dated 16th December, 2022.”

Needless to say, the Bench states in para 7 that, “It may be mentioned here that while passing the order dated 16th December, 2022, the High Court 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.”

To put it simply, the Bench observes in para 8 that, “At this stage, we are persuaded to note that the said FIR does not bear any reference to the offence under Section 307 IPC simpliciter being invoked in the case. As per the formal FIR, the offences under the various other sections of IPC mentioned above were applied against the accused in the said case. However, subsequent to the procurement of the medical reports, the Investigation Officer added offences punishable under Sections 325 and 307 IPC to the case. The report under Section 173(2) CrPC came to be filed against the accused persons nominated in FIR No. 224 of 2022 for the offences under Sections 147, 341, 323, 325, 307 and 427 read with Section 149 of IPC vide chargesheet dated 20th December, 2022.”

Delving deeper, the Bench then lays bare in para 9 revealing that, “The accused Sethu @ Angrej moved an application for bail which was dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Ajmer on 17th December, 2022. Thereafter, said accused applied for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (For short, “CrPC”) and fortuitously, the same came to be listed before the appellant-Judicial Officer who was holding the charge of the Sessions Court in the capacity of a Link Officer. As many as three separate bail applications arising out of FIR No. 224 of 2022, to be specific, Bail Application Case No. 1244 of 2022 (Sachin Sen and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan); Bail Application Case No. 1246 of 2022 (Tarachand alias Taru v. State of Rajasthan) and Bail Application Case No. 1247 of 2022 (Sethu alias Angrez v. State of Rajasthan) were listed before the appellant-Judicial Officer on 19th December, 2022.”

Do note, the Bench notes in para 10 that, “It appears that while arguing the bail applications, the contention which was raised before the Court was that the case of the bail applicants was not different from that of Sethu @ Haddi, who had been enlarged on bail by the High Court vide order dated 16th December, 2022.”

Do further note, the Bench then notes in para 11 that, “The appellant-Judicial Officer seems to be carrying some misconception that the life threatening injuries were attributed to the said Sethu @ Haddi and thus, the case of the applicants before him was not different from the said accused (Sethu @ Haddi). Applying the principle of parity and based on the order passed by the High Court in the case of Khet Singh and Another v. State of Rajasthan 2021 SCC OnLine Raj 4096, the appellant-Judicial Officer granted bail to all the aforesaid accused persons. It transpires that while considering the bail applications of accused Sethu @ Angrej, the appellant-Judicial Officer omitted to consider his criminal antecedents.”

While elaborating further, the Bench discloses in para 12 mentioning that, “The complainant in FIR No. 224 of 2022 moved for cancellation of bail granted to the accused, Sethu @ Angrej by filing an application under Section 439(2) of CrPC before the learned Sessions Judge, which came to be allowed vide order dated 6th July, 2023. The learned Sessions Judge observed that the learned counsel for the accused Sethu @ Angrej misled the Court while seeking bail on his behalf.”

As a corollary, the Bench then unfolds in para 13  revealing that, “Being aggrieved, the accused Sethu @ Angrej approached the High Court by way of S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4677 of 2024 which came to be decided by the learned Single Judge of the High Court vide order dated 3rd May, 2024. While rejecting the bail application of the accused Sethu @ Angrej, the High Court passed strictures against the appellant herein observing that, he being a Judicial Officer, had passed the order granting bail to Sethu @ Angrej dated 19th December, 2022 in a grossly inappropriate and cavalier manner while ignoring the criminal record of the said accused.”

In addition, the Bench reveals in para 14 that, “Additionally, an observation was made by the learned Single Judge that the accused Sethu @ Angrej was the principal accused in the case, as he caused the lethal injury to the injured Pappu. The High Court observed that appellant-Judicial Officer, while deciding the bail application, omitted to consider the order dated 16th December, 2022 and granted bail to the said accused ignoring the principles laid down by the High Court in the case of Jugal v. State of Rajasthan 2020 SCC OnLine Raj 2691, wherein it was mandated that the Presiding Officer granting bail to the accused is under an obligation to incorporate  the criminal record of the applicant in a tabular form and that the judgment of the High Court in the case of Khet Singh (supra) was improperly applied while granting bail to the said accused.”

Still more, the Bench points out in para 15 that, “The High Court concluded in the impugned order dated 3rd May, 2024 that this act of the appellant-Judicial Officer tantamounted to indiscipline, negligence and so also, ignorance and disobedience of the orders/judgments passed by the High Court. Observing so, it was directed that the copy of the impugned order dated 3rd May, 2024 be placed before the Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court for perusal.”

Truth be told, the Bench then observes in para 16 that, “Being aggrieved by the observations made and strictures passed against him, the appellant-Judicial Officer is before this Court by way of this appeal with special leave.”

Briefly stated, the Bench puts aptly in para 17 that, “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. Reference in this regard may be made to in Re: ‘K’, A Judicial Officer (2001) 3 SCC 54.”

To put it tersely, while adding more to it, the Bench states in para 19 that, “The said judgment has been relied on by a 3- Judge bench of this Court in Sonu Agnihotri v. Chandra Shekhar & Ors 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3382  where this Court again implored that the Courts higher in the judicial hierarchy should refrain from commenting on the conduct and calibre of judicial officers.”

Be it noted, the Bench then notes in para 20 that, “Furthermore, in the present case, the fact remains that the strictures and/or the scathing observations were made by the learned Single Judge of the High Court 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 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3763 vide judgment dated 17th December, 2024.”

It would be instructive to note that the Bench then hastens to add in para 21 noting that, “In this background, we are of the firm opinion that the strictures passed by the High Court against the appellant-Judicial Officer were uncalled for and hence, the same are expunged. The impugned order is modified to that extent.”