In a landmark move, the Supreme Court of India, on January 19, 2020, issued a directive urging all High Courts to bring about necessary corrections in their systems to enhance transparency in the recording of details and orders related to bail applications. The directive aims to ensure that all relevant information pertaining to pending or decided bail applications is clearly and mandatorily mentioned in fresh pleas, thus fostering a more streamlined and accountable judicial process.

A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal emphasized the importance of clearly indicating whether a bail application is the first, second, or subsequent one at the top of the application or in a prominent place. This measure is expected to aid the court in understanding the context of the arguments presented. The court suggested that if such information is included in the order, it would facilitate higher courts in comprehending the case's progression. Additionally, the court mandated that the court registry attach a report generated from the system about the status of decided or pending bail applications in the relevant crime case.

The directive extends beyond the realm of public prosecutions, also encompassing private complaints. The court highlighted that all cases filed in trial courts are assigned specific numbers (CNR No), even in the absence of an FIR number, ensuring a systematic approach to case management.

Moreover, the bench emphasized the duty of Investigating Officers or any officer assisting the State Counsel in court to keep the prosecuting counsel informed about any court orders concerning different bail applications or other proceedings related to the same crime case. This proactive communication is seen as crucial to maintaining a fair and informed judicial process.

To implement these changes effectively, the Supreme Court directed that a copy of the order be sent to the Registrars General of all High Courts for review and correction of their systems where necessary. The court expressed its concern over encountering similar issues from various High Courts and sought a unified and standardized approach to rectify these shortcomings.

The court's directive came in the context of a criminal appeal filed by Kusha Duruka seeking bail in a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. The bench expressed its dissatisfaction with the lack of clarity in the High Court's order regarding the nature of the bail application and the pendency of a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court. The court, deprecating such practices, highlighted the need for accuracy in recording and communicating the details of judicial proceedings.

In a specific case where the appellant had obtained bail from the High Court without clear documentation of the previous rejection of a bail application, the court dismissed the petition as infructuous and imposed a Rs 10,000 cost. While refraining from canceling the bail, the court indicated that such an extreme step could be considered in cases where the conduct of the parties warrants it.

In its judgment, the bench referred to the 1995 case of 'Chandra Shashi Vs Anil Kumar Verma,' where the court, faced with an attempt to deceive and interfere with the administration of justice, held the litigant guilty of contempt of court.

Case: Kusha Duruka vs. The State of Odisha,

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO._303 OF 2024 (ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (CRL.) NO. 12301 OF 2023).

Click to Read/Download judgment.