E-Paper
Revealing criminal past for bail must be mandatory: Supreme Court to HCs
Punjab and Haryana HC’s Rule 5, held up by SC as a model, requires that a bail applicant disclose if they have filed a similar application before the top court
The Supreme Court on Friday called upon all high courts across the country to consider introducing a mandatory rule requiring individuals seeking bail to disclose their involvement in any other criminal cases, holding that such a rule would aid judicial scrutiny and ensure that bail applications are not decided in isolation of an accused’s criminal antecedents.
“This would impose an obligation on the accused to make disclosures regarding his/her involvement in any other criminal case(s) previously registered,” emphasised a bench of justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta, adding that such a provision will strengthen the judiciary’s ability to assess whether an accused deserves bail in a given case.
The Punjab and Haryana high court’s Rule 5, held up by the Supreme Court as a model, also requires that a bail applicant disclose whether they have filed a similar application before the Supreme Court and, if so, the outcome of that plea. The rule further clarifies that any application missing such information must be placed before the bench only with the necessary details added.
“We feel that every high court in the country should consider incorporating a similar provision… 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 bench said.
To that end, the court directed that a copy of its order be sent to the registrar generals of all high courts, “so that incorporation of a similar rule in the respective rules can be considered, if such provision does not exist from earlier.”
The bench made this recommendation while deciding an appeal filed by a Rajasthan-based judicial officer who had approached the top court to challenge adverse remarks passed against him by the Rajasthan high court in a bail matter earlier this year.
While ordering the expunction of the critical observations, the bench noted that the high court judge made the strictures without offering the judicial officer an opportunity to be heard and, more significantly, relied on a precedent that had been set aside by the Supreme Court.
In its ruling, the top court underscored the importance of providing complete information about an accused’s criminal background in bail matters. It praised the Punjab and Haryana high court for having already incorporated such a requirement in its Criminal Rules and Orders, specifically pointing to Rule 5 of Chapter 1-A(b), Volume V, which mandates that every bail application must disclose whether the applicant is or was involved in any other criminal case, along with the details and outcomes.
The judicial officer from Rajasthan faced criticism in a May 2024 order of the high court. The high court had faulted the officer for granting bail to a man accused in an attempted murder case, despite the accused allegedly having a criminal background.
The Supreme Court, however, came down firmly in favour of the judicial officer, holding that the strictures were not only unjustified but procedurally flawed.
“Suffice it to say that the law is well-settled by a catena of decisions… that high courts should ordinarily refrain from passing strictures against the judicial officers while deciding matters on the judicial side,” the bench noted.
It further found that the high court’s criticism stemmed from its reliance on a judicial precedent, which had already been reversed by the top court in December 2024.
“In this background, we are of the firm opinion that the strictures passed by the high court against the appellant-judicial officer were uncalled for and hence, the same are expunged,” held the bench, modifying the high court’s order to that extent.
