TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (12) TMI 1610
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3, 3/25 and 5/25 of the Arms Act, 1959. The appellant rejected the bail application. Therefore, the accused filed a bail application before the High Court. The impugned order has been passed on the bail application. By the impugned order, bail has been granted to the accused. While granting bail, adverse observations have been made by the High Court against the appellant. Certain directions have been issued which affect the appellant. 3. In the case of Jugal Kishore vs. State of Rajasthan (2020) 4 RLW 3386, Rajasthan High Court issued directions to the Trial Courts, which were to be implemented while deciding bail applications. The directions were contained in paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 of the decision. Paragraphs nos. 9 to 11 read thus: "9. Thus, this Court directs that all learned trial courts shall, while allowing or disallowing any regular/anticipatory bail application of any accused person, give the complete details of the antecedents, if any, and also record that there are no antecedents of the accused person in case of none being there. If there are antecedents of the accused, then the complete details of the antecedents i.e. FIR Number(s) & Case Number(s), Section(s), date(....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....his omission happened due to excessive work pressure. He assured the High Court that he would follow directions in paragraph 9 of the said decision. 5. The matter did not end there. Even after the appellant submitted his explanation, by order dated 25th April 2023, the learned Single Judge of Rajasthan High Court directed the appellant to send a list of the total number of bail applications he disposed of during February 2023 and submit copies of the orders. The High Court also directed the appellant to submit a report stating whether the directions in paragraph 9 of the aforesaid judgment were followed while passing orders. The appellant complied with the directions by submitting a report dated 3rd May 2023. After that, the impugned order dated 5th May 2023 was passed. In paragraph no. 9 of the impugned order, the learned Single Judge of Rajasthan High Court observed thus: "9. Non-compliance of the judicial and administrative orders of this Court by the Sessions Judge himself was a serious matter, on which a judicial order dated 04.04.2023 was passed and a direction was given to obtain explanation, in pursuance of which in its letter dated 06.04.23, it was mentioned that the wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 11675-11676 of 2022, by which a direction for erasing paragraphs nos. 13 to 18 of the order dated 18th June 2021 was issued. Notwithstanding the order of this Court dated 20th February 2023, the High Court committed illegality in insisting on compliance with the directions issued in the case of Jugal Kishore. He submitted that the High Court ought not to have issued a direction virtually laying down in what manner orders should be passed by the Trial Courts while deciding every bail application, directing that the antecedents of the accused should be incorporated in the order in a particular tabular format. He submitted that the High Court cannot interfere with the judicial discretion of the Session Judges by instructing them to pass orders by incorporating information about the antecedents of the accused in a particular format. He submitted that as far as the strictures passed against the appellant are concerned, the law has been laid down by this Court in the case of Sonu Agnihotri vs. Chandra Shekhar and Others 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3382 He urged that unwarranted strictures passed by the learned Single Judge may adversely affect the judicial career of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....have to adjourn the hearing of the bail applications to enable the prosecutor to submit the details in the prescribed tabular format. 11. 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. 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. 12. In a given case, if necessary, the court can incorporate a chart as directed in paragraph 9 while deciding a bail application. 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 Kishore cannot be construed as mandatory directions to our Criminal Courts. At ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... April 2023 and the impugned order by which the High Court found fault with the appellant was not only unwarranted but illegal. 15. As noted earlier, in the judgment and order dated 18th June 2021 in S.B. Criminal Misc. Interim Bail Application No. 6821/2021, in paragraphs 13 to 16 and in particular paragraph 15, similar directions were issued which are issued in the case of Jugal Kishore, and by order dated 20th February 2023, the said directions have been set aside by this Court in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos. 11675-11676 of 2022 (Rajasthan High Court v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.). 16. Therefore, to conclude, we hold that the directions issued in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Jugal Kishore cannot be said to be binding directions. At the highest, the same shall be treated as suggestions made by the High Court. Non compliance with what is observed in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the said decision by a judicial officer cannot be treated as an act of indiscipline or contempt. 17. Injustice has been done to the appellant by passing the orders which we have referred to above. Before we part with this judgment, we may refer to a deci....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssed an order directing that within five years, an endeavour should be made to increase the judge-to-population ratio in our trial judiciary to 50 per million. However, till the year 2024, we have not even reached the ratio of 25 per million. Meanwhile, the population and litigation have substantially increased. The Judges have to work under stress. As stated earlier, every Judge, irrespective of his post and status, is likely to commit errors. In a given case, after writing several sound judgments, a judge may commit an error in one judgment due to the pressure of work or otherwise. As stated earlier, the higher court can always correct the error. However, while doing so, if strictures are passed personally against a Judicial Officer, it causes prejudice to the Judicial Officer, apart from the embarrassment involved. We must remember that when we sit in constitutional courts, even we are prone to making mistakes. Therefore, personal criticism of Judges or recording findings on the conduct of Judges in judgments must be avoided." (emphasis supplied) 18. The High Court ought to have shown restraint. The High Court cannot damage the career of a judicial officer by passing such ord....