It would be extremely vital to note that the Supreme Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Kaushal Singh vs The State of Rajasthan in Criminal Appeal (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No(s). 2254 of 2025 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2025 INSC 871 that was pronounced on July 18, 2025 while expunging the remarks that had been made by the Rajasthan High Court has minced absolutely just no words to hold in no uncertain terms that every High Court should consider incorporating a provision in the respective High Court Rules and/or Criminal Side Rules as it would impose an obligation on the accused to make disclosures regarding his/her involvement in any other criminal cases previously registered in bail applications. It thus merits no reiteration that the needful must be done at the earliest as it brooks no more delay any longer now! No denying or disputing it!
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by Hon’ble Mr Justice Sandeep Mehta for a Bench of the Apex Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Vikram Nath, Hon’ble Mr Justice Sanjay Karol and himself sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 3 that, “The appellant, being a Judicial Officer of the District Judge Cadre (Hereinafter referred to as the “appellant-Judicial Officer”) in the judicial services of the State of Rajasthan, has approached this Court through this appeal by special leave in order to assail the strictures passed against him in order dated 3rd May, 2024 (Hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”) passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur (Hereinafter referred to as the “High Court”) while deciding the S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4677 of 2024.”
As we see, the Bench then observes in para 5 that, “First Information Report (For short ‘FIR’) No. 224 of 2022 was registered at Police Station Gegal, District Ajmer on 23rd October, 2022 against various accused persons including Sethu @ Angrej and Sethu @ Haddi, for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 323, 341, 325, 307, 427 read with section 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (For short, “IPC”).”
Further, the Bench reveals in para 6 that, “Sethu @ Haddi was arrested on 21st November, 2022 whereas Sethu @ Angrej was arrested on 25th November, 2022 in connection with the aforesaid FIR. The High Court granted bail to Sethu @ Haddi vide order dated 16th December, 2022.”
Furthermore, the Bench then mentions in para 7 that, “It may be mentioned here that while passing the order dated 16th December, 2022, the High Court observed that the allegation of inflicting the lethal injury was against the accused Sethu @ Angrej from whom the case of the applicant therein (Sethu @ Haddi) was different.”
Still more, the Bench then further observes in para 8 that, “At this stage, we are persuaded to note that the said FIR does not bear any reference to the offence under Section 307 IPC simpliciter being invoked in the case. As per the formal FIR, the offences under the various other sections of IPC mentioned above were applied against the accused in the said case. However, subsequent to the procurement of the medical reports, the Investigation Officer added offences punishable under Sections 325 and 307 IPC to the case. The report under Section 173(2) CrPC came to be filed against the accused persons nominated in FIR No. 224 of 2022 for the offences under Sections 147, 341, 323, 325, 307 and 427 read with Section 149 of IPC vide chargesheet dated 20th December, 2022.”
To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 9 observing that, “The accused Sethu @ Angrej moved an application for bail which was dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Ajmer on 17th December, 2022. Thereafter, said accused applied for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19736 and fortuitously, the same came to be listed before the appellant-Judicial Officer who was holding the charge of the Sessions Court in the capacity of a Link Officer. As many as three separate bail applications arising out of FIR No. 224 of 2022, to be specific, Bail Application Case No. 1244 of 2022 (Sachin Sen and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan); Bail Application Case No. 1246 of 2022 (Tarachand alias Taru v. State of Rajasthan) and Bail Application Case No. 1247 of 2022 (Sethu alias Angrez v. State of Rajasthan) were listed before the appellant-Judicial Officer on 19th December, 2022.”
Truth be told, the Bench points out in para 10 that, “It appears that while arguing the bail applications, the contention which was raised before the Court was that the case of the bail applicants was not different from that of Sethu @ Haddi, who had been enlarged on bail by the High Court vide order dated 16th December, 2022.”
As it turned out, the Bench enunciates in para 11 stating that, “The appellant-Judicial Officer seems to be carrying some misconception that the life threatening injuries were attributed to the said Sethu @ Haddi and thus, the case of the applicants before him was not different from the said accused (Sethu @ Haddi). Applying the principle of parity and based on the order passed by the High Court in the case of Khet Singh and Another v. State of Rajasthan7, the appellant-Judicial Officer granted bail to all the aforesaid accused persons. It transpires that while considering the bail applications of accused Sethu @ Angrej, the appellant-Judicial Officer omitted to consider his criminal antecedents.”
Do note, the Bench notes in para 12 that, “The complainant in FIR No. 224 of 2022 moved for cancellation of bail granted to the accused, Sethu @ Angrej by filing an application under Section 439(2) of CrPC before the learned Sessions Judge, which came to be allowed vide order dated 6th July, 2023. The learned Sessions Judge observed that the learned counsel for the accused Sethu @ Angrej misled the Court while seeking bail on his behalf.”
Do also note, the Bench then notes in para 13 that, “Being aggrieved, the accused Sethu @ Angrej approached the High Court by way of S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4677 of 2024 which came to be decided by the learned Single Judge of the High Court vide order dated 3rd May, 2024. While rejecting the bail application of the accused Sethu @ Angrej, the High Court passed strictures against the appellant herein observing that, he being a Judicial Officer, had passed the order granting bail to Sethu @ Angrej dated 19th December, 2022 in a grossly inappropriate and cavalier manner while ignoring the criminal record of the said accused.”
Adding further, the Bench then observes in para 14 that, “Additionally, an observation was made by the learned Single Judge that the accused Sethu @ Angrej was the principal accused in the case, as he caused the lethal injury to the injured Pappu. The High Court observed that appellant-Judicial Officer, while deciding the bail application, omitted to consider the order dated 16th December, 2022 and granted bail to the said accused ignoring the principles laid down by the High Court in the case of Jugal v. State of Rajasthan 2020 SCC OnLine Raj 2691, wherein it was mandated that the Presiding Officer granting bail to the accused is under an obligation to incorporate the criminal record of the applicant in a tabular form and that the judgment of the High Court in the case of Khet Singh (supra) was improperly applied while granting bail to the said accused.”
Do further note, the Bench then notes in para 15 that, “The High Court concluded in the impugned order dated 3rd May, 2024 that this act of the appellant-Judicial Officer tantamounted to indiscipline, negligence and so also, ignorance and disobedience of the orders/judgments passed by the High Court. Observing so, it was directed that the copy of the impugned order dated 3rd May, 2024 be placed before the Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court for perusal.”
Needless to say, the Bench then states in para 16 that, “Being aggrieved by the observations made and strictures passed against him, the appellant-Judicial Officer is before this Court by way of this appeal with special leave.”
Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 20 that, “Furthermore, in the present case, the fact remains that the strictures and/or the scathing observations were made by the learned Single Judge of the High Court to the detriment of the appellant-Judicial Officer without providing him any opportunity of explanation or showing cause. In addition, thereto, we find that the entire foundation of the High Court’s order seems to be based on the judgment in the case of Jugal (supra) which stands reversed by this Court in the case of Ayub Khan v. State of Rajasthan11 vide judgment dated 17th December, 2024.”
It is worth noting that the Bench notes in para 21 that, “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. The impugned order is modified to that extent.”
Quite significantly, the Bench points out in para 22 that, “Before parting, we would like to state that, accounting for the criminal antecedents of the accused while considering the bail applications has been the subject matter of concern for Courts across the country. The rules and orders of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, to be specific, Rule 5 of Chapter 1-A(b) Volume-V specifically provide as below:
“5. Bail applications. – In every application for bail presented to the High Court the petitioner shall state whether similar application has or has not been made to the Supreme Court, and if made shall state the result thereof. The petitioner/applicant shall also mention whether he/she is/was involved in any other criminal case or not. If yes, particulars and decisions thereof. An application which does not contain this information shall be placed before the bench with the necessary information.””
Most significantly, the Bench encapsulates in para 23 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that, “We feel 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 to make disclosures regarding his/her involvement in any other criminal case(s) previously registered.”
Equally significant is that the Bench then further hastens to add in para 24 stating that, “It is, therefore, provided that a copy of this order shall be communicated to the Registrar Generals of all the High Courts so that incorporation of a similar Rule in the respective Rules can be considered, if such provision does not exist from earlier.”
Finally, the Bench then directs and concludes in para 26 holding that, “Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”
Sanjeev Sirohi