The Supreme Court recently directed all High Courts to ensure that bail orders reflect details of the first information reports (FIRs) like the FIR number, offenses allegedly committed, police station in which the case is registered, and dates involved [Ravish Kumar vs State of Bihar].
The division bench of Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta passed the direction in light of the fact that the format of orders passed by various High Courts differs significantly.
“Before parting with this case, this Court notices that the format of orders by various High Courts in bail proceedings differs significantly. In many instances, the orders do not contain any description of the proceedings pending before the trial court there; at times, no advertence to the nature of the offense alleged in the FIR, etc. This Court is of the opinion that in bail/anticipatory bail matters, High Courts should endeavor to ensure that all basic essentials (i.e., FIR No., date, the concerned police station and the offenses allegedly committed, etc.) are duly recorded or reflected in the format of the order.”
The Court ordered that the said direction be circulated to all the High Courts through their registrars. Therefore, the court heard an appeal filed by a person against the Patna High Court order rejecting anticipatory bail.
The petitioner stood accused of kidnapping, wrongfully confining, and raping his wife from whom he was separated. The final report in the case eventually absolved him of the charges.
The top court opined that his plea deserved to be allowed.
He was released on anticipatory bail given the peculiar circumstances of the matter where there was no mention in the High Court order of the offenses in which the accused was booked.
Advocates Satya Kam Sharma and Prashant Kumar appeared for the petitioner. Advocate Niranjana Singh and Saket Singh appeared for the State of Bihar.
