Bail Applications Without Details Of Criminal Antecedents, Prior Pleas Not To Be Numbered: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has directed that bail applications not disclosing criminal antecedents and details of prior bail pleas as mandated by the Apex Court in Zeba Khan v. State of U.P. and Others, cannot be numbered. [2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 504]Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath observed that bail applications rarely comply with the afore directions and the administrative mandate contained in the...
The Kerala High Court has directed that bail applications not disclosing criminal antecedents and details of prior bail pleas as mandated by the Apex Court in Zeba Khan v. State of U.P. and Others, cannot be numbered. [2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 504]
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath observed that bail applications rarely comply with the afore directions and the administrative mandate contained in the Office Memorandum dated 13.02.2026 issued by the High Court.
“This Court notes with concern that in the majority of bail applications filed before this Court, as well as those filed before the trial courts, the mandatory directions in Zeba Khan (supra) are seldom complied with…It is reiterated that the mandatory directions in Zeba Khan (supra) and in the aforesaid Official Memorandum shall be strictly adhered to in all the bail applications filed before this Court or before the jurisdictional Magistrate or Sessions Court at any stage of the proceedings. Bail applications that do not contain the requisite disclosures shall not be numbered.”
The Court also added a direction to the Registry and IT department to modify the present bail scrutiny system to ensure that the bail pleas preferred comply with the directions. It also asked that a copy of the order be given to all criminal courts:
“Since the bail applications filed before this Court are subjected to machine-based scrutiny, the Registry, with the assistance of the IT Directorate of this Court, shall make necessary modifications in the bail scrutiny module to ensure that the directions of the Supreme Court are complied with before numbering any bail application… The Registry shall forward a copy of this order to all the Courts in the State dealing with criminal cases.”
The Court made the observations while considering two unconnected regular bail applications, where the petitioners did not disclose details of antecedents and prior bail applications.
One of the petitioners is accused of the offences under the POCSO Act and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita for alleged committing aggravated sexually assault and sexually harassing a minor girl aged 11 years. The other petitioner is also accused of sexual assault and sexual harassment of a 16-year-old girl.
The Court perused the Office Memorandum, which mandates information including criminal antecedents (FIR No, Police station, Sections, Status – Pending/Acquitted/Convicted) and, details of previous bail applications (Court, Case No., Outcome of case).
It noted that in one of the cases, the petitioner had preferred a second bail plea just 10 days after dismissal of his earlier plea but suppressed that fact. In the other case, the petitioner failed to disclose his involvement in 8 other criminal cases.
Since mandatory directions were not complied with by both the petitioners, the Court dismissed the pleas.
Case Nos: BA Nos.4806 & 4925/2026
Case Titles: Pramasivam v. State of Kerala & Siraj Vazhayil @ Saji Thaneerkattil v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 504
Counsel for the applicants: K. Lasitha, Shahbas M.
Counsel for the respondents: V. Vinay - Sr. Public Prosecutor