Rajasthan HC Direction To Trial Courts To Incorporate Chart Containing Accused’s Antecedents Details In Bail Orders Not Mandatory: SC
The Supreme Court, in a recent Judgment, held that the decision in the case of Jugal Kishore v. State of Rajasthan (2020) 4 RLW 3386 cannot be construed as mandatory directions to the Criminal Courts.
The Court held thus in a Criminal Appeal preferred by a District and Sessions Judge of Rajasthan Judicial Service, seeking quashing of adverse directions issued against him.
The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih observed, “In a given case, if necessary, the court can incorporate a chart as directed in paragraph 9 while deciding a bail application. However, if a High Court directs that in every bail order, a chart should be incorporated in a particular format, it will amount to interference with the discretion conferred on the Trial Courts. Therefore, in our view, what is observed in paragraph 9 of the decision in the case of Jugal Kishore cannot be construed as mandatory directions to our Criminal Courts. At the highest, it can be taken as a suggestion which need not be implemented in every case.”
The Bench emphasised that, no Constitutional Court can direct the Trial Courts to write Orders on Bail Applications in a particular manner.
Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra represented the Appellant while AAG Sansriti Pathak represented the Respondent.
In this case, the Appellant joined the judicial service in the year 1993 and filed an Appeal for limited purposes of striking down observations made in the Order against him and for quashing the adverse directions issued against him. The Appellant decided a Bail Application filed by an accused who was charged with offences punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3, 5, and 25 of the Arms Act, 1959.
The Appellant rejected the Bail Application and therefore, the accused filed a Bail Application before the High Court. By the impugned Order, bail was granted to the accused and while granting bail, adverse observations were made by the High Court against the Appellant. Certain directions were issued which affected the Appellant. Hence, the Appellant was before the Apex Court.
The Supreme Court in the above context of the case, noted, “One Judge of a Constitutional Court may be of the view that Trial courts should use a particular format. The other Judge may be of the view that another format is better.”
The Court said that the Appellant was forced to give a reply and was left with no choice but to tender an apology by submitting the reply and with the utmost respect to the High Court, undertaking such an exercise was a waste of precious judicial time of the High Court which has a huge pendency.
“The direction of calling for an explanation from a judicial officer by a judicial order was inappropriate. Explanation of a judicial officer can be called for only on the administrative side”, it remarked.
Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Appeal, expunged the adverse remarks against the Judicial Officer, and set aside the impugned directions.
Cause Title- Ayub Khan v. The State of Rajasthan (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 994)
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra, AOR Vanya Gupta, Advocates Javed Khan, and Sandeep Mishra.
Respondent: AAG Sansriti Pathak, AOR Milind Kumar, Advocates Vishal Meghwal, B S Rajesh Agrajit, and Yashika Bum.
