Bail order formatting cannot be made mandatory, and personal strictures against a judicial officer were unwarranted.

Constitutional courts may lay down governing principles for bail, but they cannot compel trial courts to use a fixed tabular format in every bail order. Antecedents are only one relevant factor among several, and the mandatory format would improperly restrict judicial discretion; the directions were therefore treated as advisory, not binding. Because the format was not mandatory, a judicial officer's failure to follow it could not justify adverse remarks, a call for explanation, or other personal strictures in the bail proceedings. Any administrative concern had to be addressed through the Chief Justice on the administrative side. The adverse observations and related directions were set aside and expunged.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the directions requiring every trial court to incorporate the accused's antecedents in a prescribed tabular format while deciding bail applications were binding mandatory directions; (ii) Whether the adverse remarks, directions to call for explanation, and forwarding of the matter against the judicial officer were justified.

Issue (i): Whether the directions requiring every trial court to incorporate the accused's antecedents in a prescribed tabular format while deciding bail applications were binding mandatory directions?

Analysis: The power of constitutional courts to lay down principles governing bail does not extend to dictating the form in which every bail order must be written. Antecedents are only one relevant factor among several in bail adjudication, and in many cases bail may be granted on other considerations such as long incarceration or default entitlement. A rigid requirement to include antecedents in every case would interfere with the discretion of trial courts and could even necessitate adjournments to obtain the prescribed details. The directions were therefore incapable of being treated as universally mandatory.

Conclusion: The directions were not binding mandatory directions and could operate only as suggestions.

Issue (ii): Whether the adverse remarks, directions to call for explanation, and forwarding of the matter against the judicial officer were justified?

Analysis: Once the underlying directions were not mandatory, non-compliance could not be treated as indiscipline or contempt. A judicial officer's explanation should not be called for on the judicial side in this manner, and adverse personal remarks affecting the officer's career were unwarranted. If administrative action was thought necessary, the proper course was on the administrative side through the Chief Justice, not by judicial strictures in the bail proceedings. The impugned observations and directions were therefore unjustified and liable to be removed.

Conclusion: The adverse remarks and related directions were set aside and expunged.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the impugned strictures against the judicial officer were removed, and no adverse administrative consequence could rest on the set-aside observations.

Ratio Decidendi: Constitutional courts may correct erroneous bail orders and lay down governing principles, but they cannot make a particular format for bail orders compulsory or impose personal judicial strictures on a judicial officer for not following a non-mandatory format.

---