+91 964 334 1948
18 Jul 2025, 01:00 PM
The Supreme Court on Friday (July 18) suggested to all High Courts to incorporate a 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.
The Court cited a provision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules as an example. The said Rule, Rule 5 of Chapter 1-A(b) Volume-V of the P&H HC Rules, stated :
"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.”
The Court suggested that all High Courts incorporate a similar rule. A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed :
"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."
The Court directed that a copy of this order be communicated to the Registrar Generals of all High Courts so that incorporation of a similar Rule in the respective Rules can be considered.
The bench made these observations while expunging the strictures passed by the Rajasthan High Court against a Judicial Officer in relation to his decision in a bail application. 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.
Case : Kaushal Singh vs State of Rajasthan
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 724
Click here to read the judgment