Summary and Analysis of Kaushal Singh vs. The State of Rajasthan Criminal Appeal No(s). of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Cri.) No(s). 2254 of 2025)

1. Heading of the Judgment

Case Title: Kaushal Singh vs. The State of Rajasthan
Court: Supreme Court of India
Jurisdiction: Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No(s). of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Cri.) No(s). 2254 of 2025)
Judges: Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.
Date of Judgment: July 18, 2025

2. Related Laws and Sections

The judgment involves the following legal provisions:

• Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860: Sections 147, 323, 341, 325, 307, 427 read with Section 149.

• Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973: Sections 439(2) (Bail Cancellation) and 173(2) (Chargesheet).

• Constitutional Provisions: Article 227 (Supervisory Jurisdiction of High Courts).

• Precedents Cited:
  Re: ‘K’, A Judicial Officer (2001) 3 SCC 54.
  Sonu Agnihotri v. Chandra Shekhar & Ors. (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3382).
  Ayub Khan v. State of Rajasthan (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3763).

3. Basic Judgment Details

• Appellant: Kaushal Singh, a Judicial Officer of the Rajasthan District Judge Cadre.

• Respondent: The State of Rajasthan.

• Issue: Challenge to strictures passed by the Rajasthan High Court against the appellant for granting bail to an accused (Sethu @ Angrej) in a criminal case.

• Outcome: Supreme Court expunged the strictures, holding them uncalled for, and modified the High Court’s order.

4. Explanation of the Judgment

Background of the Case

• A criminal case (FIR No. 224 of 2022) was registered against multiple accused, including Sethu @ Angrej and Sethu @ Haddi, for offenses like rioting, assault, and attempted murder (Sections 147, 307 IPC, etc.).

• The High Court granted bail to Sethu @ Haddi on December 16, 2022, noting that the lethal injury was attributed to Sethu @ Angrej.

• The appellant (Judicial Officer) granted bail to Sethu @ Angrej on December 19, 2022, based on parity with Sethu @ Haddi’s case, but overlooked Sethu @ Angrej’s criminal antecedents.

High Court’s Strictures

• The High Court, while rejecting Sethu @ Angrej’s bail application on May 3, 2024, passed strictures against the appellant for:
  Granting bail in a "grossly inappropriate and cavalier manner."
  Ignoring the accused’s criminal record and misapplying precedents.
  Failing to comply with the High Court’s earlier judgment in Jugal v. State of Rajasthan (mandating disclosure of criminal history in bail orders).

• The High Court termed the appellant’s actions as "indiscipline, negligence, and disobedience" and directed its order to be placed before the Chief Justice for administrative action.

Supreme Court’s Ruling

1. Expungement of Strictures:
   The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s strictures violated principles of natural justice, as the appellant was condemned unheard.
   Citing Re: ‘K’, A Judicial Officer and Sonu Agnihotri, the Court emphasized that higher courts should avoid personal criticism of judicial officers in judgments. Instead, concerns should be addressed confidentially on the administrative side.

2. Error in High Court’s Basis:
   The High Court relied on Jugal v. State of Rajasthan, which was later reversed by the Supreme Court in Ayub Khan v. State of Rajasthan. Thus, the foundation of the strictures was flawed.

3. Guidelines for Bail Applications:
   The Supreme Court recommended that all High Courts adopt a rule (similar to Punjab & Haryana High Court’s Rule 5) requiring accused persons to disclose their criminal history in bail applications.
   A copy of the judgment was directed to be sent to all High Courts for compliance.

Final Decision

• The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, expunged the strictures against the appellant, and modified the High Court’s order.

Key Takeaways

1. Judicial Discipline: Higher courts must refrain from passing adverse remarks against subordinate judicial officers without giving them an opportunity to explain.

2. Natural Justice: Condemning a judicial officer unheard is a violation of fundamental fairness.

3. Transparency in Bail: Accused persons must disclose their criminal antecedents in bail applications to ensure informed judicial decisions.