Supreme Court: The appellant, a Judicial Officer of the District Judge Cadre in the judicial services of the State of Rajasthan, approached this Court to challenge the strictures passed against him in order dated 3-5-2024 (‘the impugned order’) by the Rajasthan High Court (‘the High Court’). The 3-Judges Bench of Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta*, JJ., opined that the strictures and/or the scathing observations were made to the detriment of the appellant as he was not provided with any opportunity of explanation, thus, the same were set aside. The Court opined that every High Court in the country should consider incorporating a provision in the respective High Court Rules and/or Criminal Side Rules which would impose an obligation on the accused persons to make disclosures regarding his/her involvement in any other criminal case(s) previously registered.
Background
In the present case, a FIR was registered at Police Station Gegal, Ajmer in 2022 against various accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 323, 341, 325, 307, 427 read with Section 149 of the Penal Code, 1860. Further, two of the accused persons were arrested, but Accused 2 was granted bail by the High Court vide order dated 16-12-2022, wherein it was observed that the allegation of inflicting the lethal injury was against Accused 1 from whom the case of Accused 2 was different.
Thereafter, Accused 1 filed an application for bail, but the same was dismissed and so he applied for bail under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and the same was listed before the appellant, who granted him bail. Thereafter, an application was filed against the said order before the Sessions Judge, who observed that the counsel for Accused 1 misled the Court while seeking bail on his behalf. Being aggrieved by the Sessions Court’s order, Accused 1 approached the High Court and by the impugned order, the High Court, while rejecting the bail application of Accused 1, passed strictures against the appellant.
The High Court had observed that the appellant, being a Judicial Officer, passed the order granting bail to Accused 1 in a grossly inappropriate and cavalier manner while ignoring his criminal record and therefore, his act tantamounted to indiscipline, negligence, ignorance and disobedience of the orders/judgments passed by the High Court in Jugal v. State of Rajasthan, 2020 SCC OnLine Raj 2691 (‘Jugal Case’). Thus, the appellant, by way of the present appeal, with special leave, was before this Court.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court opined that High Courts should ordinarily refrain from passing strictures against the judicial officers while deciding matters on the judicial side.
The Court referred to ‘K’, A Judicial Officer, In re, (2001) 3 SCC 54, which was relied on by a 3- Judge Bench of this Court in Sonu Agnihotri v. Chandra Shekhar, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3382, where this Court implored that the courts higher in the judicial hierarchy should refrain from commenting on the conduct and calib of judicial officers.
The Court opined that in the present case, the strictures and/or the scathing observations were made by the Single Judge of the High Court to the detriment of the appellant without providing him with any opportunity of explanation or showing cause. The Court stated that the High Court’s order was based on the judgment of Jugal Case (supra), which stood reversed by this Court in Ayub Khan v. State of Rajasthan, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3763.
The Court thus opined that the strictures passed by the High Court against the appellant were uncalled for and hence, set aside the same, thereby modifying the impugned order to the said extent.
The Court stated that while considering the bail applications, accounting for the criminal antecedents of the accused persons had been the subject matter of concern for the courts across the country. The Court referred to Rule 5 of Chapter 1-A(b) Volume-V of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules and Orders and thus, opined 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 persons to make disclosures regarding his/her involvement in any other criminal case(s) previously registered.
The Court allowed the appeal and directed that the copy of the present order should be communicated to the Registrar Generals of all the High Courts so that incorporation of a similar Rule in the respective Rules could be considered if such provision did not exist from earlier.
[Kaushal Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1473, decided on 18-7-2025]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Sandeep Mehta
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
