Revealing criminal past for bail must be mandatory: Supreme Court to HCs

The Punjab and Haryana High Court’s Rule 5, endorsed by the Supreme Court as a benchmark, mandates that bail applicants disclose if they have previously filed a similar application before the Supreme Court. Recently, the Supreme Court urged all high courts nationwide to consider adopting a compulsory rule requiring individuals seeking bail to reveal their involvement in any other criminal cases. Revealing criminal past for bail must be mandatory: Supreme Court to HCs. The Court emphasized that this transparency would enhance judicial evaluation and prevent bail decisions from being made without considering an accused’s full criminal history.

A bench consisting of Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta stressed that such a rule would require accused persons to disclose any prior criminal cases against them. This disclosure, they noted, would aid the judiciary in better assessing bail eligibility. The Punjab and Haryana High Court’s Rule 5, which has been held as a model, also requires applicants to state whether they have filed any similar pleas before the Supreme Court and to provide details of the outcomes. Applications missing this information must be supplemented before being heard by the bench.

The Supreme Court recommended that all high courts contemplate adding similar provisions to their procedural rules, if such rules are not already in place. To facilitate this, the Court directed that copies of its order be sent to the registrar generals of all high courts for appropriate consideration.

This recommendation came during the hearing of an appeal by a Rajasthan judicial officer, who challenged critical remarks made against him by the Rajasthan High Court in an earlier bail matter. The Supreme Court ordered the removal of these adverse observations, noting that the high court had issued them without giving the officer a chance to respond. Moreover, the high court’s criticism relied on a precedent that the Supreme Court had since overturned.

The apex court underscored the necessity of furnishing complete details about an accused’s criminal background in bail proceedings. It praised the Punjab and Haryana High Court for already including such requirements in its Criminal Rules and Orders, specifically Rule 5 of Chapter 1-A(b), Volume V, which mandates disclosure of involvement in other criminal cases, including their outcomes.

The Rajasthan judicial officer had faced censure in May 2024 after the high court criticized his decision to grant bail to an individual accused of attempted murder, despite the accused’s alleged criminal record. The Supreme Court, however, sided with the officer, finding the high court’s strictures unjustified and procedurally defective.

The bench highlighted established legal principles that caution high courts against imposing punitive remarks on judicial officers for decisions made in their judicial capacity. The Court also noted that the criticism stemmed from reliance on a judicial precedent that had been reversed by the Supreme Court in December 2024.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court expressed the firm view that the strictures against the judicial officer were unwarranted and ordered their expunction, thereby modifying the earlier high court order accordingly.