Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has on January 19, 2020 asked all the High Courts to bring about "corrections" in the system, wherever required, to ensure that details and orders of bail applications filed by the accused, either pending or decided, are clearly and mandatorily mentioned in the fresh pleas.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal said in case it is mentioned on the top of the bail application or any other place which is clearly visible, that the application for bail is either first, second or third and so on, so that it is convenient for the court to appreciate the arguments in that light. 

"If this fact is mentioned in the order, it will enable the next higher court to appreciate the arguments in that light. The registry of the court should also annex a report generated from the system about decided or pending bail application(s) in the crime case in question. The same system needs to be followed even in the case of private complaints as all cases filed in the trial courts are assigned specific numbers (CNR No), even if no FIR number is there," the bench added.

The bench also said that it should be the duty of the Investigating Officer/any officer assisting the State Counsel in court to apprise him of the order(s), if any, passed by the court with reference to different bail applications or other proceedings in the same crime case. 

It has further been directed that a copy of the order be sent to the Registrars General of all the High Courts to be placed before the Chief Justices for correction of the system, wherever required, as this court comes across similar issues from different High Courts. 

Court was dealing with a criminal appeal filed by Kusha Duruka for grant of bail in a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, wherein it said, "This is another case in which an effort has been made to pollute the stream of administration of justice".

The matter related to recovery of 23.8 kg of Ganja from the conscious and exclusive possession of the appellant and co accused Gangesh Kumar Thakur alias Gangesh Thakur. Both the accused were arrested on February 3, 2022 in Malkangiri.

The appellant's bail plea was rejected by the High Court, which though had granted relief to the co accused. He filed the special leave petition before the top court. During the hearing, much to its surprise, the top court came to know that the appellant also got bail from the High Court on October 11, 2023.

On going through the High Court's order, the bench noted it was nowhere mentioned that it was the second bail application filed by the appellant nor the fact about the pendency of the SLP before this court, in which notice had already been issued was mentioned. 

Taking the matter seriously and deprecating such a practice, the court called for all the record. The Odisha government filed an affidavit that the High Court did not have the knowledge of the fact that the first bail application filed by the appellant was rejected on March 06, 2023 by the High Court and also regarding filing of the SLP by the petitioner before this court.

"During the pendency of the matter before this court a fresh bail application was filed not only before the Trial Court but even before the High Court. The High Court even granted bail to the appellant. In the bail application filed before the High Court, it was not mentioned that the same was second bail application filed by the appellant," the bench said.

It then dismissed the instant petition as infructuous with Rs 10,000 cost. "Though considering the conduct of the petitioner, one of the option available was to cancel his bail, however, we do not propose to take such an extreme step in the case in hand. However, this can be the option exercised by the Court if the facts of the case so demand seeing the conduct of the parties," the bench said.

In its judgment, the bench cited its decision in case of 'Chandra Shashi Vs Anil Kumar Verma (1995) when the court was faced with a situation where an attempt was made to deceive it and interfere with the administration of justice and the litigant was held to be guilty of contempt of court. 

Case Title: Kusha Duruka vs. The State of Odisha