Ayub Khan vs The State Of Rajasthan

Court: Supreme Court
Case type: Criminal Appeal
Decided on: 17-12-2024

<pre> Reportable 
2024 INSC 994
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 
 
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2024 
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.10587 of 2023)
 
 
Ayub Khan … Appellant 
 
versus 
 
 
The State of Rajasthan … Respondent 
 
 
 
J U D G M E N T 
ABHAY S. OKA, J. 
1. Leave granted.
FACTUAL ASPECT 
2. The appellant is a District and Sessions Judge of Rajasthan
Judicial Service. The appellant joined the judicial service in the year
1993. The appellant has filed the present appeal for limited purposes
of striking down observations made in the impugned order against him
and for quashing the adverse directions issued against him. The
appellant decided a bail application filed by an accused who was
charged with offences punishable under Section 307 read with Section
34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’) and Sections 3, 3/25 and
5/25 of the Arms Act, 1959. The appellant rejected the bail application.
Therefore, the accused filed a bail application before the High Court.
The impugned order has been passed on the bail application. By the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
KAVITA PAHUJA
Date: 2024.12.17
17:52:10 IST
Reason:
impugned order, bail has been granted to the accused. While granting
bail, adverse observations have been made by the High Court against
Criminal Appeal @ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.10587 of 2023 Page 1 of 14

the appellant. Certain directions have been issued which affect the
appellant.
1
3. In the case of Jugal Kishore vs. State of Rajasthan ,
Rajasthan High Court issued directions to the Trial Courts, which
were to be implemented while deciding bail applications. The
directions were contained in paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 of the
decision. Paragraphs nos. 9 to 11 read thus:
“9. Thus, this Court directs that all learned 
trial courts shall, while allowing or 
disallowing any regular/anticipatory bail 
application of any accused person, give the 
complete details of the antecedents, if any, 
and also record that there are no 
antecedents of the accused person in case of 
none being there. If there are antecedents of 
the accused, then the complete details of the 
antecedents i.e. FIR Number(s) & Case 
Number(s), Section(s), date(s), status and 
date of arrest & release on any previous 
occasion, if any, in the chart form shall be 
prepared and incorporated in the learned 
trial courts’ order, while granting or 
dismissing the bail application. 
10. This order shall be conveyed by the Registry
of this Court to all learned District & Sessions
Judges of the State, who shall ensure the
immediate implementation of this order
amongst all the judicial officers and all courts in
their respective jurisdiction, which are hearing
the bail applications. The detailed 
antecedents report in aforesaid format so 
provided in the trial courts' order shall be the 
requirement for disposal of any bail 
application in State of Rajasthan. It is also

1
( 2020) 4 RLW 3386
Criminal Appeal @ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.10587 of 2023 Page 2 of 14

directed that the learned Public Prosecutors all
over the State shall call for the antecedents
report well in advance in every case of bail, so
as to enable the courts to have a definite and
correct information regarding previous criminal
antecedents of the accused. A certified copy of
this order be also sent by the Registry to the
Director of the Prosecution Department of the
State for necessary compliance, amongst the
learned Public Prosecutors all over the State of
Rajasthan.
11. The Registry of this Hon’ble Court shall
ensure compliance of this order, in its letter and
spirit, and submit such compliance before this
Court on 05.01.2021. ”
(underline supplied)
4. While dismissing the bail application by order dated 20th
December 2022, the appellant did not incorporate the details of the
antecedents of the accused in the prescribed tabular form in terms
of the directions in paragraph 9 quoted above. He merely
mentioned in the order that there were 10 criminal cases registered
against the accused at different police stations. Therefore, the
th
learned Single Judge of the High Court passed an order dated 4
April 2023 observing that since the directions issued by the High
1
Court in the case of Jugal Kishore were not complied with by the
appellant, it not only amounts to indiscipline but may also amount
to contempt. Therefore, the learned Judge directed that a copy of
the said order be forwarded to the appellant and his explanation
be called for within five days. Accordingly, the appellant submitted
th
his explanation dated 6 April 2023, in which he accepted that the
directions in paragraph 9 of the decision have not been complied
with. The appellant stated that this omission happened due to
Criminal Appeal @ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.10587 of 2023 Page 3 of 14

excessive work pressure. He assured the High Court that he would
follow directions in paragraph 9 of the said decision.

5. The matter did not end there. Even after the appellant
th
submitted his explanation, by order dated 25 April 2023, the
learned Single Judge of Rajasthan High Court directed the
appellant to send a list of the total number of bail applications he
disposed of during February 2023 and submit copies of the orders.
The High Court also directed the appellant to submit a report
stating whether the directions in paragraph 9 of the aforesaid
judgment were followed while passing orders. The appellant
rd
complied with the directions by submitting a report dated 3 May
th
2023. After that, the impugned order dated 5 May 2023 was
passed. In paragraph no. 9 of the impugned order, the learned
Single Judge of Rajasthan High Court observed thus:
“9. Non-compliance of the judicial and
administrative orders of this Court by the
Sessions Judge himself was a serious matter, on
which a judicial order dated 04.04.2023 was
passed and a direction was given to obtain
explanation, in pursuance of which in its letter
dated 06.04.23, it was mentioned that the
winter vacations were about to start soon on
20.12.2022 and due to excessive work, the
details of pending criminal cases against the
accused could not be recorded in the prescribed
format and it was also mentioned that "in
disposal of all bails, the list of pending cases
against the accused in the orders of the Hon'ble
Court in the bail order is recorded in accordance
with the principles enunciated in Jugal Kishore
Vs. State of Rajasthan. ”

Criminal Appeal @ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.10587 of 2023 Page 4 of 14

6. In paragraph 10, the learned Single Judge referred to the
th
report submitted by the appellant pursuant to the order dated 25
April 2023. It was observed that even in the bail orders passed in
February 2023 by the appellant, compliance with the directions
was not made. Paragraphs 11 and 12 of the impugned order read
thus:
“ 11. It is clear from the above discussion that
despite being on an important post like Sessions
Judge, the concerned Presiding Officer did 
not follow the judicial or administrative 
instructions of this Court and on being asked 
for explanation, took different contradictory 
and contrary defences at different times. An 
attempt has been made to mislead this Court 
and judicial time of this Court has been 
unnecessarily spent on this account. In the 
above circumstances, this matter is related 
to the disobedience of judicial instructions 
and judicial indiscipline, therefore a serious 
matter and it is necessary to bring this fact 
to the notice of the Honorable Chief Justice 
for necessary action in relation to the 
concerned Presiding Officer .

12. Therefore, according to the opinion and
instructions expressed in para no. 08 and 11 of
this order, the Registrar General of this court is
directed to immediately submit a copy of this
order with relevant documents and
explanations to the Hon’ble Chief Justice. ”
(emphasis added)
SUBMISSIONS 
7. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant
th
invited our attention to the judgment and order dated 18 June
2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High
Criminal Appeal @ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.10587 of 2023 Page 5 of 14

Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Interim Bail Application
No.6821/2021 (Gagandeep @ Goldy v. State of Rajasthan). In
paragraph no.13 of the said order, the learned Single Judge issued
similar directions, which were issued in paragraph no.9 of the
1 ,
Jugal Kishore
decision in the case of with more elaboration. He
th
pointed out that by order dated 20 February 2023 of this Court
in Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 11675-11676 of
2022, by which a direction for erasing paragraphs nos. 13 to 18 of
th
the order dated 18 June 2021 was issued. Notwithstanding the
th
order of this Court dated 20 February 2023, the High Court
committed illegality in insisting on compliance with the directions
1
issued in the case of Jugal Kishore . He submitted that the High
Court ought not to have issued a direction virtually laying down in
what manner orders should be passed by the Trial Courts while
deciding every bail application, directing that the antecedents of
the accused should be incorporated in the order in a particular
tabular format. He submitted that the High Court cannot interfere
with the judicial discretion of the Session Judges by instructing
them to pass orders by incorporating information about the
antecedents of the accused in a particular format. He submitted
that as far as the strictures passed against the appellant are
concerned, the law has been laid down by this Court in the case of
2
Sonu Agnihotri vs. Chandra Shekhar and Others He urged
that unwarranted strictures passed by the learned Single Judge
may adversely affect the judicial career of the appellant. The
learned counsel appearing for the State has assisted the Court.

2
2024 SCC OnLine SC 3382
Criminal Appeal @ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.10587 of 2023 Page 6 of 14

CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS 
8. We have already quoted the directions issued by the High
1
Court in the case of Jugal Kishore . The gist of the directions
issued is summarised as follows:
i. The Trial Courts shall, while allowing or disallowing
any regular or anticipatory bail application must
incorporate complete details of the antecedents of the
accused, if any, in the order;
ii. The Trial Court shall record that there are no
antecedents in case none are there; and
iii. If antecedents exist, the same shall be incorporated in
the tabular form containing details mentioned in the
judgment.
9. The principles to be followed while deciding on a bail
application are well settled. If Trial Courts commit errors while
deciding bail applications, the same can always be corrected on
the judicial side by the Courts, which are higher in the judicial
hierarchy. The Constitutional Courts can lay down the principles
governing the grant of bail or anticipatory bail. However, the
Constitutional Courts cannot interfere with the discretion of our
Trial Courts by laying down the form in which an order should be
passed while deciding bail applications. What the High Court has
1
done in paragraph 9 in the decision in the case of Jugal Kishore
is that it has made it mandatory for the Trial Courts to incorporate
a chart containing details of the antecedents of the accused who
applies for bail.
Criminal Appeal @ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.10587 of 2023 Page 7 of 14

10. 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. In a given case, the Court may
grant default bail. Again, the antecedents of the accused are
irrelevant in such a case. Thus, depending upon the peculiar facts,
the Court can grant bail notwithstanding the existence of the
antecedents. In such cases, the question of incorporating details
of antecedents in a tabular form does not arise. If the directions
1
in the case of Jugal Kishore are to be strictly implemented, the
Court may have to adjourn the hearing of the bail applications to
enable the prosecutor to submit the details in the prescribed
tabular format.
 
11. When the prosecution places on record material showing
antecedents of the accused, and if the Court concludes that
looking at the facts of the case and the nature of antecedents, the
accused should be denied bail on the ground of antecedents, it is
not necessary for the Court to incorporate all the details of the
antecedents as required by paragraph 9 of the decision in the case
1
of Jugal Kishore . The Court may only refer to the nature of the
offences registered against the accused by referring to penal
provisions under which the accused has been charged.
12. In a given case, if necessary, the court can incorporate a
chart as directed in paragraph 9 while deciding a bail application.
Criminal Appeal @ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.10587 of 2023 Page 8 of 14

However, if a High Court directs that in every bail order, a chart
should be incorporated in a particular format, it will amount to
interference with the discretion conferred on the Trial Courts.
Therefore, in our view, what is observed in paragraph 9 of the
1 
Jugal Kishore
decision in the case of cannot be construed as
mandatory directions to our Criminal Courts. At the highest, it can
be taken as a suggestion which need not be implemented in every
case. No Constitutional Court can direct the Trial Courts to write
orders on bail applications in a particular manner. One Judge of
a Constitutional Court may be of the view that Trial courts should
use a particular format. The other Judge may be of the view that
another format is better.
th
13. The matter does not rest here. In the order dated 4 April
2023 passed in the same bail petition in which the impugned order
has been passed, it was observed that the directions issued in
paragraph 9 have been disregarded by the appellant. The High
Court went to the extent of observing that the act of disregarding
direction contained in paragraph 9 of the decision in the case of
1
Jugal Kishore is not only indiscipline but is a serious matter
which may amount to contempt. Therefore, an explanation of the
appellant was called for. We fail to understand how the appellant
committed acts of indiscipline or contempt by not following the
suggestion incorporated in paragraph 9. Secondly, 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 of calling for an
explanation from a judicial officer by a judicial order was
inappropriate. Explanation of a judicial officer can be called for
Criminal Appeal @ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.10587 of 2023 Page 9 of 14

only on the administrative side. The High Court carried the matter
th
further. By order dated 25 April 2023, the High Court directed
the appellant to send a list of the total number of bail applications
he disposed of in February 2023, along with copies of the orders
passed by him. He was also directed to submit a report on whether
1 
directions contained in the case of Jugal Kishore were followed
by him. The appellant was forced to give a reply and was left with
no choice but to tender an apology by submitting the reply. With
the utmost respect to the High Court, undertaking such an
exercise was a waste of precious judicial time of the High Court
which has a huge pendency.
 
14. What the High Court has done while deciding a bail petition
in a case where bail was denied by the appellant as a Session
Judge was completely uncalled for. The entire exercises done by
the High Court right from issuing directions in the case of Jugal 
1 
th th
Kishore and passing orders dated 4 April 2023, 25 April 2023
and the impugned order by which the High Court found fault with
the appellant was not only unwarranted but illegal.
th
 
15. As noted earlier, in the judgment and order dated 18 June
2021 in S.B. Criminal Misc. Interim Bail Application
No.6821/2021, in paragraphs 13 to 16 and in particular
paragraph 15, similar directions were issued which are issued in
1
th
the case of Jugal Kishore , and by order dated 20 February
2023, the said directions have been set aside by this Court in
Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos.11675-11676 of 2022 (Rajasthan 
High Court v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.).
Criminal Appeal @ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.10587 of 2023 Page 10 of 14

</pre><table><thead><tr><th>16. Therefore, to conclude, we hold that the directions issued in</th><th></th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>paragraphs 9 and 10 of the decision of the Rajasthan High Court</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>in the case of Jugal Kishore1 cannot be said to be binding</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>directions. At the highest, the same shall be treated as suggestions</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>made by the High Court. Non compliance with what is observed in</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>paragraphs 9 and 10 of the said decision by a judicial officer</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>cannot be treated as an act of indiscipline or contempt.</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>17. Injustice has been done to the appellant by passing the</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>orders which we have referred to above. Before we part with this</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>judgment, we may refer to a decision of this Court in the case of</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Sonu Agnihotri2. In paragraphs nos. 15 and 16, this Court held</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>thus:</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>“15. The Courts higher in the judicial hierarchy</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>are invested with appellate or revisional</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>jurisdiction to correct the errors committed by the</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>courts that are judicially subordinate to it. The</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>High Court has jurisdiction under Article 227 of</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>the Constitution of India and Section 482 of</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>the CrPC to correct the errors committed by the</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>courts which are judicially subordinate to it. We</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>must hasten to add that no court can be called a</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>“subordinate court”. Here, we refer to</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>“subordinate” courts only in the context of</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>appellate, revisional or supervisory jurisdiction.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>The superior courts exercising such powers can</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>set aside erroneous orders and expunge</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>uncalled and unwarranted observations. While</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>doing so, the superior courts can legitimately</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>criticise the orders passed by the Trial Courts</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>or the Appellate Courts by giving reasons.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>There can be criticism of the errors</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>committed, in some cases, by using strong</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>language. However, such observations must</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>always be in the context of errors in the</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>impugned orders. While doing so, the courts</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>have to show restraint, and adverse comments</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table><pre>
Criminal Appeal @ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.10587 of 2023 Page 11 of 14

on the personal conduct and calibre of the 
Judicial Officer should be avoided. There is a 
difference between criticising erroneous orders 
and criticising a Judicial Officer. The first part 
is permissible. The second category of 
criticism should best be avoided. The reasons 
are already explained by this Court in Re:‘K’, A 
Judicial Officer . There are five reasons given 
in paragraph 15 of the decision why judicial 
officers should not be condemned unheard. As 
observed in the decision, the High Court 
Judges, after noticing improper conduct on the 
part of the Judicial Officer, can always invite 
the attention of the Chief Justice on the 
administrative side to such conduct. Whenever 
action is proposed against a judicial officer on 
the administrative side, he gets the full 
opportunity to clarify and explain his position. 
But if such personal adverse observations are 
made in a judgment, the Judicial Officer's 
career gets adversely affected. 
16. The Judges are human beings. All human
beings are prone to committing mistakes. To err is
human. Almost all courts in our country are
overburdened. In the year 2002, in the case of “ All 
India Judges' Association (3) v. Union of India , this
Court passed an order directing that within five
years, an endeavour should be made to increase
the judge-to-population ratio in our trial judiciary
to 50 per million. However, till the year 2024, we
have not even reached the ratio of 25 per million.
Meanwhile, the population and litigation have
substantially increased. The Judges have to work
under stress. As stated earlier, every Judge,
irrespective of his post and status, is likely to
commit errors. In a given case, after writing
several sound judgments, a judge may commit an
error in one judgment due to the pressure of work
or otherwise. As stated earlier, the higher court
can always correct the error. However, while doing
so, if strictures are passed personally against a
Judicial Officer, it causes prejudice to the Judicial
Criminal Appeal @ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.10587 of 2023 Page 12 of 14

Officer, apart from the embarrassment involved.
We must remember that when we sit in
constitutional courts, even we are prone to
making mistakes. Therefore, personal criticism of
Judges or recording findings on the conduct of
Judges in judgments must be avoided. ”
(emphasis supplied)
18. The High Court ought to have shown restraint. The High
Court cannot damage the career of a judicial officer by passing
such orders. The reason is that he cannot defend himself when
such orders are passed on the judicial side.
19. Hence, we pass the following order:
i. All adverse remarks/observations in the impugned
th
order dated 5 May 2023 made against the appellant,
stand expunged. The findings contained in paragraph
11 of the impugned order holding that the appellant
has indulged in disobedience of judicial instructions
and indiscipline are set aside and the direction to
place the case before the Chief Justice is also set
aside;
ii. The observations made against the appellant in orders
th th
dated 4 April 2023, 25 April 2023 and directions
issued thereunder to the appellant are set aside. We
clarify that in view of what we have held earlier, the
adverse remarks and observations made against the
appellant in the aforesaid orders cannot be the basis
for taking any action against the appellant on the
administrative side;
Criminal Appeal @ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.10587 of 2023 Page 13 of 14

iii. A copy of this judgment shall be forwarded to the
Registrar General of the High Court of Rajasthan who
shall place the same before the Hon’ble Chief Justice
of the said Court on administrative side.
iv. Appeal is allowed on the above terms.

...…………………………….J.
(Abhay S Oka)

..…………………………….J.
(Augustine George Masih)
New Delhi; 
December 17, 2024.

Criminal Appeal @ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.10587 of 2023 Page 14 of 14
</pre>