The Supreme Court has issued directives mandating the inclusion of details regarding previous bail applications and their respective orders in all bail pleas.
In a notable legal development, the Supreme Court, in the case of KUSHA DURUKA v. THE STATE OF ODISHA, has enumerated prerequisites for bail applications to enhance procedural efficiency and prevent inconsistencies. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to these guidelines to streamline proceedings and avoid anomalies, reiterating the directive from the Pradhani Jani v. The State of Odisha judgment that all bail applications related to distinct accused in the same FIR should be heard by the same Judge.
The Division Bench, comprising Justices Rajesh Bindal and Vikram Nath, issued specific directions:
1. The petitioner must provide details and copies of orders from earlier decided bail applications.
2. Details of any pending bail applications by the petitioner in other courts must be disclosed, along with a clear statement if none is pending.
3. The bail application should clearly indicate whether it is the first, second, or subsequent application, facilitating the court's understanding and aiding higher courts in appreciating the arguments.
4. The court registry is mandated to annex a report on decided or pending bail applications related to the specific crime case, extending this practice to private complaints using specific case numbers (CNR No.).
Furthermore, the Court highlighted the duty of the Investigating Officer or any officer assisting the State Counsel to apprise them of relevant court orders in the same crime case. The Court underscored the need for counsel to conduct themselves as officers of the Court.
During the hearing of a bail application involving two individuals accused under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, the Court observed a situation where bail applications were listed before different judges in the High Court. Notably, the appellant's earlier rejection of bail by Judge A and subsequent grant of bail by Judge B, who had also granted bail to the co-accused, raised concerns.
Despite dismissing the application as infructuous, the Court retained the option to cancel bail, given the conduct of the parties. However, no adverse order was passed, emphasizing that such an option could be exercised if the case's facts so demanded. The Court's decision aimed to prevent confusion in future proceedings and uphold the integrity of the legal process.