LexKAUSHAL SINGH versus THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 1221 : 2025 INSC 871 Kaushal Singh v. The State of Rajasthan (Criminal Appeal No. 3053 of 2025) 18 July 2025 [Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the expunction of strictures passed by the High Court against the Judicial Officer. Headnotes† Strictures – Strictures against the judicial officers – Expunction – High Court passed strictures against the Judicial Officer that the Judicial Officer had passed the order granting bail to the accused in a grossly inappropriate and cavalier manner while ignoring the criminal record of the accused; and that the act of the Judicial Officer tantamounted to indiscipline, negligence and, ignorance and disobedience of the orders passed by the High Court, and directed that the copy of the order be placed before the Chief Justice of the High Court for perusal – Expunction of: Held: High Courts should ordinarily refrain from passing strictures against the judicial officers while deciding matters on the judicial side – Strictures passed by the High Court against the Judicial Officer were uncalled for and thus, are expunged – Strictures and/or the scathing observations were made by the Single Judge of the High Court to the detriment of the Judicial Officer without providing him any opportunity of explanation or showing cause – Furthermore, the entire foundation of the High Court’s order seems to be based on the judgment by the High Court in Jugal’s case which stands reversed by this Court in the case of Ayub Khan’s case – Impugned order modified to that extent. [Paras 18, 20, 21] Judicial directions – Accounting for the criminal antecedents of the accused while considering the bail applications – Rule 5 of Chapter 1-A(b) Volume-V of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules specifically provide that in every application for * Author 1222 [2025] 7 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports bail presented to the High Court the petitioner to state whether similar application has or has not been made to the Supreme Court, with its result, and petitioner’s involvement in any other criminal cases – Issuance of directions by this Court that every High Court to consider incorporation of a similar provision in the respective High Court Rules and/or Criminal Side Rules as it would impose an obligation on the accused to make disclosures regarding its involvement in any other criminal cases previously registered – Communication of the said order to the Registrar Generals of all the High Courts for the incorporation of the similar Rule, if such provision does not exist. [Paras 22-24] Case Law Cited In Re: ‘K’, A Judicial Officer [2001] 1 SCR 959 : (2001) 3 SCC 54; Sonu Agnihotri v. Chandra Shekhar & Ors. [2024] 11 SCR 861 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3382; Ayub Khan v. State of Rajasthan, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3763 – referred to. Khet Singh and Another v. State of Rajasthan, 2021 SCC OnLine Raj 4096; Jugal v. State of Rajasthan [2024] 12 SCR 680 : 2020 SCC OnLine Raj 2691 – referred to. List of Acts Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Penal Code, 1860; Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules. List of Keywords Strictures; Expunction of strictures; Strictures against Judicial Officer; Bail granted in grossly inappropriate and cavalier manner; Indiscipline; Negligence; Ignorance and disobedience of orders/ judgments passed by High Court; Chief Justice of High Court; Scathing observations; Detriment of Judicial Officer; Opportunity of explanation; Criminal antecedents of accused; Bail application. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 3053 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 03.05.2024 of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur in SBCRMBA No. 4677 of 2024 [2025] 7 S.C.R. 1223 Kaushal Singh v. The State of Rajasthan Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellant: Balasubramaniam, R (col), Sr. Adv., Javed Khan, Ms. Vanya Gupta. Advs. for the Respondent: Ms. Sansriti Pathak, A.A.G., Aman Prasad, Ms. Shagufa Khan, Ms. Nidhi Jaswal. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Mehta, J. 1. Heard. 2. Leave granted. 3. The appellant, being a Judicial Officer of the District Judge Cadre1 in the judicial services of the State of Rajasthan, has approached this Court through this appeal by special leave in order to assail the strictures passed against him in order dated 3rd May, 20242 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.