Supreme Court Issues Directions To HCs To Ensure Disclosure Of Necessary Information In Bail Applications

The Supreme Court on Wednesday issued directions to the High Courts to ensure that bail applications disclose certain necessary details.

The Court directed that the applications should ordinarily reflect the following particulars:

(A) CASE DETAILS

• FIR Number & Date
• Police Station, District and State
• Sections invoked
• Maximum punishment prescribed

(B) CUSTODY & PROCEDURAL COMPLIANCE

• Date of Arrest
• Total period of custody undergone

(C) STATUS OF TRIAL

• Stage of proceedings (Investigation / Chargesheet / Cognizance / Framing of charges / Trial)
• Total number of witnesses cited in the chargesheet
• Number of prosecution witnesses examined

(D) CRIMINAL ANTECEDENTS

• FIR No. & Police Station
• Sections
• Status (Pending / Acquitted/ Convicted)

(E) PREVIOUS BAIL APPLICATIONS

• Court
• Case No.
• Outcome of case

(F) COERCIVE PROCESSES

• Whether any Non-Bailable Warrant was issued
• Whether declared a proclaimed offender

The Court urged the High Courts to issue appropriate administrative directions or incorporate suitable provisions in their respective Rules consistent with their rule-making powers for the display of details in bail orders. The Court directed that its judgment be forwarded to the Registrar Generals of all High Courts. The copy of the judgment was directed to circulated to district judiciary for guidance.

A bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R Mahadevan issued the directions while cancelling the bail granted to man accused of obtaining a fake LLB degree and running a racket for supplying forged degrees.

"Allegations against the accused are not confined to an isolated incident of forgery but prima facie disclosed of systematic and organised course of conduct involving fabrication, procurement and use of educational qualifications particularly LLB degrees which has a direct bearing on the integrity of legal profession and the administration of justice", the Court observed.

The court noted that there are prima facie allegations of stalking and intimidation of the complainant after the accused was granted bail. "This court earlier expressly cautioned the accused that any instance of coercing the appellant into withdrawing the proceedings would invite strict action. The existence of a family or a property dispute does not dilute the gravity of allegations of impersonation as a legal professional and the use of the credentials before courts which has serious public and institutional ramifications extending for beyond the private dispute", the Court observed.

The Court refused to order CBI investigation into the case finding no doubt on the credibility of police investigation.

The Court highlighted that in bail applications, the trial court, the High Court and finally the Supreme Court are often required to form a prima facie view based on incomplete or selectively presented records. It emphasised that non-disclosure of material aspects may lead either to the unwarranted grant of bail or to prolonged incarceration despite substantial custody having been undergone. The Court held that every petitioner or applicant seeking bail, at any stage, is under an obligation to disclose all material particulars.

"Thus, this Court is of the view that every petitioner or applicant seeking bail, at any stage of proceedings, is under an obligation to disclose all material particulars, including criminal antecedents and the existence of any coercive processes such as issuance of non-bailable warrants, declaration as a proclaimed offender, or similar proceedings, duly supported by an affidavit, so as to promote uniformity, transparency and integrity in bail adjudication", the Court held.

Background