NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has ruled that individuals filing bail petitions in any court must now disclose their criminal history to help judges assess the applicant's potential risk to society upon release.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta said it would be prudent for all high courts to revise their rules and adopt the model followed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which mandates bail applicants to disclose any prior criminal cases.
According to the Punjab and Haryana High Court's rules, every bail application must include a statement from the petitioner regarding whether they have made a similar application to the Supreme Court and its outcome. Additionally, the petitioner must disclose whether they have been involved in any other criminal cases. If so, they must provide details and the outcome of those cases. Applications missing this information will be flagged for further scrutiny.
The bench noted, “We believe every high court in the country should consider implementing a similar rule in their own court rules or criminal side rules. This would ensure that accused individuals are obligated to disclose any prior criminal cases they’ve been involved in.”
In its ruling, the Court directed the SC registry to send a copy of the judgment to the registrars general of all high courts, urging them to introduce a similar rule to the one in Punjab and Haryana. The bench emphasized, “Considering the criminal antecedents of the accused while evaluating bail applications has long been a concern for courts nationwide.”
This ruling came in a case where a magistrate was misled into granting bail to the main accused by an incorrect belief that the Rajasthan High Court had granted bail to a co-accused. In reality, the HC had granted bail only to an accused facing a lesser charge. While overturning the magistrate's decision, the HC had criticized the judicial officer’s actions. However, on appeal by the judicial officer, the Supreme Court found that the strictures were unwarranted, as the officer had not been given an opportunity to explain his actions, thus violating the principle of natural justice.
