Author: Adv. Vinayak D. Porob
In the backdrop of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s verdict in the case of “Zeba Khan vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.”, a recently issued circular in Goa highlights procedural changes in bail matters. According to this, even before the hearing on a bail application begins, the applicant is mandated to provide detailed information on 29 points, including FIR details, date of arrest, criminal antecedents, the nature of financial allegations, claims of parity and the status of other cases. This new system is proving to be a major documentary hurdle in the bail process.
While administrative efficiency and judicial preparedness are valid considerations, the practical difficulties do not seem to have been fully accounted for when imposing this condition. Often, the accused is in custody and has limited access to documents. In such circumstances, gathering or verifying such detailed information especially regarding criminal antecedents across different jurisdictions can be practically impossible for them. This, in a way, places an additional burden on the accused that should realistically be a part of the investigation. It is also necessary to view this in the context of the principle “innocent until proven guilty.”
This process could impact the established principle of “Bail is the rule and jail is the exception,” especially if these procedural conditions cause delays in filing bail applications or lead to hearings being postponed. If such disclosure is indeed necessary, it would be more appropriate for this responsibility to lie with the Investigating Officer (IO), as they possess the institutional machinery and resources required to compile such information. Otherwise, these procedural requirements may inadvertently obstruct the timely hearing of bail pleas.
Asking an accused to provide a detailed account of their own criminal history can be difficult in several respects. It is not reasonable to expect a person in custody to accurately remember or verify cases spanning different states. In such a situation, the information provided can only be based on the accused’s “best knowledge,” and the possibility of inadvertent errors cannot be ruled out.
However, in most cases, the requested information is already available to the investigating officers through central databases and interstate coordination. If the goal is accuracy and completeness of information, it would be more appropriate for the Prosecution to assist the court by submitting certified records.
Therefore, adopting a balanced approach would be beneficial. The court should accept such disclosures merely as statements made according to the accused’s knowledge and should not draw adverse inferences against the accused if there are discrepancies. Alternatively, the investigating officer could be allowed to verify and correct that information. As another option, directions could be given directly to the investigating officer to submit full details to assist the court.
Rules of procedure or methodology are meant to facilitate decisions regarding an individual’s liberty, not to create complications. To maintain a balance between administrative efficiency and individual rights, it is essential that these processes remain practical and accessible.
Disclaimer : The view expressed here is the personal opinion of the author based on the practical issues faced as a defence advocate and is for general informational purpose only.
