Ayub Khan vs The State of Rajasthan

Held: Principles to be followed while deciding a bail application are well settled – Constitutional Courts can lay down the principles governing the grant of bail or anticipatory bail but, cannot interfere with the discretion of Trial Courts by laying down the form in which an order should be passed while deciding bail applications – However, in the case of Jugal Kishore, the High Court made it mandatory for the Trial Courts to incorporate a chart containing details of the antecedents of the accused who applies for bail – The presence of the antecedents of the accused is only one of the several considerations for deciding the prayer for bail made by him – In a given case, if the accused makes out a strong prima facie case, depending upon the fact situation and period of incarceration, the presence of antecedents may not be a ground to deny bail – There may be a case where a Court can grant bail only on the grounds of long incarceration – The presence of antecedents may not be relevant in such a case – No Constitutional Court can direct the Trial Courts to write orders on bail applications in a particular manner – Directions issued by the Rajasthan High Court in Jugal Kishore not binding – Non-compliance therewith by a judicial officer cannot be treated as an act of indiscipline or contempt – Furthermore, even assuming that the appellant was guilty of indiscipline, on the judicial side, the High Court ought not to have passed an order calling for an explanation from a judicial officer – The direction calling for an explanation from a judicial officer by a judicial order was inappropriate – Explanation of a judicial officer can be called for only on the administrative side – Eventually, the appellant had to tender an apology – The entire exercises done by the High Court while deciding a bail petition was not only unwarranted but illegal – Injustice has been done to the appellant by passing the orders – All adverse remarks/observations made against the appellant in the impugned order, expunged – Findings in the impugned order that the appellant indulged in disobedience of judicial instructions and indiscipline set aside – Observations/directions against the appellant in orders dated 4.04.23, 25.04.23 also set aside. [Paras 9, 10, 12-14, 16, 19]

Judiciary – Judicial officer – Explanation sought from a judicial officer by way of a judicial order, practice deprecated: Held: Explanation of a judicial officer can be called for only on the administrative side – In the present case, the High Court ought to have shown restraint – High Court cannot damage the career of a judicial officer by passing such orders as he cannot defend himself when such orders are passed on the judicial side. [Paras 13, 18]