popups

No Constitutional Court can direct Trial Courts to write bail orders in particular manner: SC

Read Time: 13 minutes

Synopsis

The high court had asked a district and sessions judge to mention an accused's antecedents in a tabular form within bail orders in an attempt to murder case

The Supreme Court recently observed that no constitutional court can direct the trial courts to write orders on bail applications in a particular manner, as it would amount to interference with the discretion of the courts.

A bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih expunged all adverse remarks and observations made by the Rajasthan High Court in response to a plea by Ayub Khan, District and Sessions Judge, for his failure to comply with a 2020 judgment. The judgment required the mention of an accused's antecedents in a tabular form within bail orders in an attempt to murder case.

The bench held that the high court should not have passed an order calling for an explanation from a judicial officer. It deemed such a direction inappropriate, emphasizing that calling for an explanation through a judicial order was improper.
 
The bench said the principles to be followed while deciding on a bail application are well settled.
 
"If Trial Courts commit errors while deciding bail applications, the same can always be corrected on the judicial side by the Courts, which are higher in the judicial hierarchy," the bench said.
 
The district and sessions judge argued that the high court should not have issued a direction dictating how trial courts should pass orders on every bail application. He contended that the high court could not interfere with the judicial discretion of sessions judges by instructing them to incorporate information on an accused’s antecedents in a particular format.
 
After hearing the submissions, the bench said, "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 our Trial Courts by laying down the form in which an order should be passed while deciding bail applications."
 
The court highlighted that an accused's antecedents were merely one of many factors in bail decisions. In cases where an accused presents a strong prima facie case, the presence of antecedents might not justify denying bail. In some situations, bail could be granted solely based on long incarceration, making antecedents irrelevant, the court noted.
 
Additionally, the court explained that the antecedents may be irrelevant in cases where default bail was granted.
 
"Thus, depending upon the peculiar facts, the Court can grant bail notwithstanding the existence of the antecedents. In such cases, the question of incorporating details of antecedents in a tabular form does not arise," the bench said.
 
The bench further said when 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, it is not necessary for the Court to incorporate all the details of the antecedents as required by paragraph 9 of the decision in the case of Jugal Kishore Vs State of Rajasthan (2020).
 
The bench again pointed out 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. In a given case, if necessary, the court can incorporate a chart.
 
"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 Kishore1 cannot be construed as mandatory directions to our Criminal Courts," the bench said.
 
The court added at the highest, it can be taken as a suggestion that need not be implemented in every case.
 
"No Constitutional Court can direct the Trial Courts to write orders on bail applications in a particular manner. 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 bench said.
 
In the case at hand, the high court had gone so far as to describe the appellant's disregard for the direction in the Jugal Kishore case as indiscipline and a serious matter that could amount to contempt, calling for an explanation from the appellant.
 
"We fail to understand how the appellant committed acts of indiscipline or contempt by not following the suggestion incorporated in paragraph 9 of the judgment. Secondly, even assuming that the appellant was guilty of indiscipline, on the judicial side, 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 bench said.
 
The court also noted the appellant was forced to give a reply and was left with no choice but to tender an apology by submitting the reply.
 
"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 bench said.
 
Citing Sonu Agnihotri Vs Chandra Shekhar and Others (2024), the bench said, "The High Court ought to have shown restraint. The High Court cannot damage the career of a judicial officer by passing such orders. The reason is that he cannot defend himself when such orders are passed on the judicial side."
 
The court accordingly expunged all adverse remarks and observations made in the impugned order of May 5, 2023, against the appellant.
 
"The findings contained in paragraph 11 of the impugned order holding that the appellant has indulged in disobedience of judicial instructions and indiscipline are set aside and the direction to place the case before the Chief Justice is also set aside," the bench ordered.
 
It also declared that the adverse remarks and observations could not form the basis for any action against the appellant on the administrative side
 
It directed that the judgment be forwarded to the Registrar General of the Rajasthan High Court for submission to the Chief Justice on the administrative side.

Case Title: Ayub Khan Vs The State of Rajasthan
Download and read judgement here

Also Read