Supreme Court: In a criminal appeal by a Judicial Officer assailing the Rajasthan High Court’s decision to the extent of adverse remarks and directions made against him, the Division Bench of Abhay S Oka* and Augustine George Masih, JJ. allowed the appeal and expunged the adverse directions and remarks, holding that no Constitutional Court can direct the Trial Courts to write orders on bail applications in a particular manner.
The Court opined that the High Court’s observations against the Judicial Officer were completely uncalled for, the entire exercises done by the High Court right from issuing directions in the case of Jugal Kishore v. State of Rajasthan and passing impugned orders was not only unwarranted but illegal.
Background
The appellant, a District and Sessions Judge of the Rajasthan Judicial Service decided a bail application filed by an accused who was charged with offences punishable under Section read with Section of the (‘IPC’) and Sections , / and / of the . The Judicial Officer rejected the bail application, which came to be challenged before the High Court. In the impugned order, bail was granted to the accused. However, while granting bail, adverse observations were made by the High Court against the Judicial Officer for not complying with directions issued by the High Court in Jugal Kishore (supra) wherein directions were issued to the Trial Courts, which were to be implemented while deciding bail applications. The Judicial Officer filed the present appeal for striking down adverse observations and directions made in the impugned order against him.
Impugned Decision
The High Court noted that the Judicial Officer did not incorporate the details of the antecedents of the accused in the prescribed tabular form in terms of the directions in Jugal Kishore (supra). He merely mentioned in the order that there were 10 criminal cases registered against the accused at different police stations. Therefore, the High Court opined that non-compliance with Jugal Kishore (supra) not only amounts to indiscipline but may also amount to contempt. Hence, the High Court directed that a copy of the said order be forwarded to the Judicial Officer and his explanation be called for within five days. Accordingly, he submitted his explanation accepting that the directions in paragraph 9 of Jugal Kishore (supra) were not complied with and stated that this omission happened due to excessive work pressure while assuring the High Court that he would follow directions.
In subsequent order dated 25-04-2023, the High Court directed the Judicial Officer to send a list of the total number of bail applications he disposed of during February 2023 and submit copies of the orders along with a direction to submit a report stating whether the directions in paragraph 9 were followed while passing orders. In the impugned order dated 5-05-2023, the High Court stated- “…despite being on an important post like Sessions Judge, the concerned Presiding Officer did not follow the judicial or administrative instructions of this Court and on being asked for explanation, took different contradictory and contrary defences at different times. An attempt has been made to mislead this Court and judicial time of this Court has been unnecessarily spent on this account. In the above circumstances, this matter is related to the disobedience of judicial instructions and judicial indiscipline, therefore a serious matter and it is necessary to bring this fact to the notice of the Chief Justice for necessary action in relation to the concerned Presiding Officer.”
Directions in Jugal Kishore (supra)
The Trial Courts shall, while allowing or disallowing any regular or anticipatory bail application must incorporate complete details of the antecedents of the accused, if any, in the order;
The Trial Court shall record that there are no antecedents in case none are there; and
If antecedents exist, the same shall be incorporated in the tabular form containing details mentioned in the judgment.
Analysis and Decision
Regarding the settled principles to be followed while deciding on a bail application, the Court said that if the Trial Courts commit errors while deciding bail applications, the higher Courts can always correct the same on the judicial side. The Bench added that the Constitutional Courts can lay down the principles governing the grant of bail or anticipatory bail, however, the Constitutional Courts cannot interfere with the discretion of Trial Courts by laying down the form in which an order should be passed while deciding bail applications. In Jugal Kishore (supra) it was mandated for the Trial Courts to incorporate a chart containing details of the antecedents of the accused who applies for bail.
The Court explained that the presence of the antecedents of the accused is only one of the several considerations for deciding the prayer for bail. If the accused makes out a strong prima facie case, depending upon the fact situation and period of incarceration, the presence of antecedents may not be a ground to deny bail. The Court pointed out that there may be a case where a Court can grant bail only on the grounds of long incarceration. In such cases, the question of incorporating details of antecedents in a tabular form does not arise. The Court said that if the directions in Jugal Kishore are to be strictly implemented, the Court may have to adjourn the hearing of the bail applications to enable the prosecutor to submit the details in the prescribed tabular format.
Further, the Court underlined that if the prosecution places on record material showing antecedents of the accused, and if the Court concludes that looking at the facts of the case and the nature of antecedents, the accused should be denied bail on the ground of antecedents, the Court is not required to incorporate all the details of the antecedents in the format required in Jugal Kishore. The Court may only refer to the nature of the offences registered against the accused by referring to penal provisions under which the accused has been charged.
On the basis of the above discussion, the Court opined that-
In a given case, if necessary, the Court can incorporate a chart as directed in paragraph 9 of Jugal Kishore (supra) while deciding a bail application. However, if the High Court mandates that a chart should be incorporated in a particular format, it will amount to interference with the discretion of the Trial Courts. Therefore, what is observed in paragraph 9 of Jugal Kishore cannot be construed as mandatory directions to Criminal Courts. At the highest, it can be taken as a suggestion which need not be implemented in every case.
Regarding the High Court’s observation on indiscipline and contempt by the Judicial Officer, the Court failed to gather how the Judicial Officer’s acts were of indiscipline or contempt by not following the suggestion incorporated in Jugal Kishore (supra). The Court added that even if he was guilty of judicial indiscipline, the High Court ought not to have passed an order calling for an explanation from a Judicial Officer. 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. The Court also said that the direction to submit the total number of bail applications he disposed of during February 2023 was a waste of precious judicial time of the High Court which has a huge pendency.
Considering that directions similar to Jugal Kishore (supra) were set aside by this Court in Rajasthan High Court v. State of Rajasthan , the Bench held that the directions issued in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the Jugal Kishore cannot be said to be binding directions. At the highest, the same shall be treated as suggestions made by the High Court and non-compliance with the same cannot be considered an act of indiscipline or contempt.
The Court observed that the High Court ought to have shown restraint and cannot damage the career of a Judicial Officer by passing such orders. Therefore, the Court set aside all the adverse remarks/observations and directions in the impugned order made against the Judicial Officer. The Court clarified that the adverse remarks and observations made against him in the aforesaid orders cannot be the basis for taking any action against the Judicial Officer on the administrative side.
CASE DETAILS
| Citation: Criminal Appeal No. 5388/2024 Appellants : Ayub Khan Respondents : State of Rajasthan | Advocates who appeared in this case For Petitioner(s): Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv.; Javed Khan, Adv.; Vanya Gupta, AOR; Sandeep Mishra, Adv. For Respondent(s): Sansriti Pathak, A.A.G.; Vishal Meghwal, Adv.; Milind Kumar, AOR; B S Rajesh Agrajit; Yashika Bum, Adv. |
CORAM :
Buy Penal Code, 1860
SBCRMBA No. 1800/2023.
Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos. 11675-11676 of 2022.
The post appeared first on .