List of Current Affairs
Home / List of Current Affairs
Criminal Law
Bail Order Management System (BOMS)
05-Nov-2025
Source: Allahabad High Court
Why in News?
Recently, Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal directed the immediate electronic transmission of bail orders through the Bail Order Management System (BOMS) to ensure no person remains in jail after being granted bail, addressing delays despite the Supreme Court’s 2023 bail policy ruling.
- The Allahabad High Court held this in the matter of Sohrab Alias Sorab Ali v. State of U.P. (2025).
What was the Background of Sohrab Alias Sorab Ali vs. State of U.P. (2025) ?
- The applicant, Sohrab Alias Sorab Ali, filed a bail application seeking release in Case Crime No. 314 of 2025, registered under Sections 137(2) and 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, at Police Station Saini, District Kaushambi, during the pendency of trial.
- The counsel for the applicant contended that although the First Information Report contained allegations of enticing away the daughter of the informant, the victim herself stated in her statement under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita that she had left her house on her own volition. The applicant was therefore falsely implicated in the offence.
- The applicant had been languishing in jail since September 25, 2025. The chargesheet had already been filed, eliminating any requirement for custodial interrogation. The applicant had a criminal history of one case but assured the Court that he would not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.
- During the proceedings, the Court took judicial notice of systemic delays in implementing bail orders. The Registrar (Compliance) informed the Court that due to the absence of jail details in bail applications, it became difficult to send copies of bail orders directly to the Jail Superintendent. Consequently, orders were being routed through the Inspector General (Prisons) and Chief Judicial Magistrates, causing significant delays.
- The Court was further apprised by the Computer Programmer Coordinator (CPC) of the High Court that direct access to the e-prison portal through dedicated identification had not been provided to the Bail Section and Criminal Appeal Section by the National Informatics Centre (NIC), preventing direct transmission of bail orders to concerned jails.
- The Court noted that it had encountered numerous cases where accused persons or convicts remained confined in prison even after being granted bail, primarily due to delays in verification of sureties. The Court observed that some officials of the revenue and police departments were allegedly involved in corrupt practices in the name of surety verification, which constituted a menace in the administration of justice.
- Additionally, the Court noted that despite the initiation of the Bail Order Management System (BOMS) for sending release orders electronically during pre-lunch sessions, jail inmates were being released only in the evening after physical collection of release orders, contrary to the provisions of the Jail Manual.
What were the Court’s Observations?
- The Court emphasised that personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be curtailed due to administrative laxity, and once bail is granted, it becomes the right of the undertrial or convict to be informed and released immediately.
- The Court observed that verification of sureties should be conducted in court premises through electronic processes to prevent corrupt practices allegedly being carried out by some revenue and police officials, ensuring that accused persons do not remain in prison even for a single day after being granted bail.
- The Court noted that the practice of releasing inmates only in the evening after physically collecting release orders has no place in the Jail Manual, as Rule 91 of the UP Jail Manual, 2002 mandates that release orders must be complied with promptly and prisoners shall ordinarily be released the same day.
- The Court directed that from December 1, 2025, all bail applications must mention jail details, and directed various authorities including the NIC, CPC, Director General (Prison), and Additional Chief Secretary (Home) to ensure direct electronic transmission of bail orders through BOMS and immediate release of prisoners upon receiving electronic release orders.
What are the Court Directions Issued by the Apex Court in Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail ?
- Advocates should mention the jail details in the bail application where the accused applicant or convict has been under incarceration so as to enable the Office/Bail Section of this Court to send the bail orders to the undertrial/convict-applicant immediately.
- The Reporting Section of the HC will not clear any bail application filed in this Court or its Bench at Lucknow after 01.12.2025, unless the detail is mentioned in the bail application regarding the jail where the applicant is, at present, under incarceration.
- Notice of this direction should also be given to Advocates through Bar Association, High Court, Allahabad and such notice shall also be pasted outside the Reporting Section, apart from notifying the same on the official website of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.
- CPC, High Court, Allahabad will coordinate with the NIC to get direct access to e-prison portal through dedicated ID in concerned criminal sections so that bail orders from the HC can be sent to the applicant (undertrial or convict) promptly through the Jail Superintendent, without any outside interference, which is possible through e-mail.
- NIC to cooperate with the CPC, High Court, Allahabad for the aforesaid issue.
- The Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Secretariat, Government of U.P., Lucknow is directed to issue a direction to the officials concerned for ensuring the establishment of electronic verification of sureties in the district courts' compound itself in coordination with the District Judge concerned.
- The Director General (Prison) is also directed to issue necessary direction to all prison authorities to release a jail inmate immediately after receiving the electronic release order through BOMS instead of collecting of the release orders from the Courts and then release the jail inmates in the evening.
Civil Law
Order XVIII of CPC
05-Nov-2025
Source: Karnataka High Court
Why in News?
Recently, Justice S Vishwajith Shetty clarified that in suits with multiple issues, the plaintiff must lead evidence first even if some issues’ burden lies on the defendant, though the plaintiff may reserve the right to rebut after the defendant’s evidence.
- The Karnataka High Court held this in the matter of Deenanath and chandrahas & others(2025).
What was the Background of Deenanath and chandrahas & others (2025)?
- The present case arose from a family property dispute involving siblings. Mr. Deenanath, aged about 65 years, was the petitioner and defendant, while his siblings Chandrahas, Thukaram, Smt. Jalajakshi, and Smt. Yashavanthi were the respondents and plaintiffs. All parties were children of late K. Ananda.
- The respondents filed Original Suit No. 193 of 2019 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge and DCJM, Mangaluru, seeking partition and separate possession of Schedule 'A' property. The plaintiffs claimed entitlement to 1/5th share each in the suit schedule 'A' property left by their deceased father, K. Ananda.
- The petitioner/defendant opposed the suit claim by filing a detailed written statement, contending that their father K. Ananda had executed a Will dated 11.11.2007, bequeathing plaint item No. 3 property in his favour.
- The trial court framed four issues after considering the pleadings. Issue No. 1 concerned whether the plaintiffs could prove their entitlement to 1/5th share each with separate possession. Issue No. 2 dealt with whether the defendant could discharge his burden of proving the alleged Will dated 11.11.2007. Issue No. 3 related to whether the plaintiffs could prove that the defendant was liable to render true and correct account of the income from the properties and pay the plaintiffs their 1/5th share. Issue No. 4 pertained to whether the plaintiffs were entitled to the relief sought.
- The burden of proving all issues except Issue No. 2 lay upon the plaintiffs, while the burden of proving Issue No. 2 regarding the validity and execution of the Will lay upon the defendant.
- The procedural controversy arose when the plaintiffs filed a memorandum dated 27.09.2021 stating that they had no evidence to lead at present and reserved their right to lead rebuttal evidence, requesting that the defendant be asked to lead evidence first.
- The defendant objected to this memorandum, arguing that the burden of proof for Issues No. 1 and 3 lay upon the plaintiffs, and only Issue No. 2 required the defendant to discharge his burden. The defendant contended that the plaintiffs ought to have led their evidence on Issues No. 1 and 3, and could only seek permission to lead rebuttal evidence in respect of Issue No. 2.
- The trial court, vide order dated 10.11.2021, allowed the plaintiffs' memorandum and took their evidence as 'nil' for the time being, subject to their right to lead rebuttal evidence, and called upon the defendant to lead evidence. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner/defendant filed Writ Petition No. 796 of 2022 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the Karnataka High Court, challenging the trial court's direction.
What were the Court’s Observations?
- The Karnataka High Court observed that Order XVIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure recognizes that ordinarily it is the plaintiff who has the right to begin by leading his evidence. The only exception exists where the defendant admits the facts alleged by the plaintiff and contends that either in point of law or on some additional facts alleged by the defendant, the plaintiff is not entitled to any part of the relief sought. In such circumstances, the defendant has the right to begin.
- The court noted that in cases involving multiple issues, Order XVIII Rule 3 becomes applicable, giving plaintiffs an option either to produce evidence on issues where the burden lies on the defendant, or to reserve it by way of answer to the evidence produced by the other party.
- The court established a critical legal principle that when there are several issues in a case, in respect of the issue where the burden is on the defendant to prove, the plaintiff can exercise the option as provided under Rule 1. However, in respect of the other issues, the right to lead the evidence is always on the plaintiff.
- The court held that while a plaintiff can request to reserve his right to lead evidence in rebuttal after the defendant leads his evidence, it is for the defendant to decide whether he wants to begin with the evidence.
- Applying this principle to the present case, the court observed that except Issue No. 2, the burden to prove other issues lay upon the plaintiffs. Therefore, the plaintiffs ought to have led their evidence on Issues No. 1 and 3, and it was only in respect of Issue No. 2 that they could have sought permission to lead rebuttal evidence. The court held that the trial court failed to appreciate this aspect and erred in granting the prayer made in the plaintiffs' memorandum.
- The court placed reliance upon the Bombay High Court judgment in Bhagirath Shankar Somani v. Rameshchandra Daulal Soni (2007), which held that there is nothing under Rule 1 of Order XVIII conferring any power on the court to direct the defendant to adduce evidence first if the defendant himself has not claimed such right.
- The court noted that Rule 1 is an enabling provision entitling the defendant of the right to begin and cannot be interpreted to mean that the court could compel the defendant to enter the witness box before the plaintiff.
- Consequently, the court allowed the writ petition, set aside the trial court's order dated 10.11.2021, and directed that the plaintiffs shall begin their evidence on all issues except Issue No. 2. The court further directed that if the plaintiffs request to lead rebuttal evidence on Issue No. 2 after the defendant leads evidence, the trial court shall consider it in light of the observations made in the order.
What is Order XVIII of Code of Civil Procedure,1908?
- Order XVIII deals with Hearing of the suit and examination of witnesses
- Rule 1 - Right to Begin:
- The plaintiff has the right to begin the proceedings by leading evidence first as the general rule in civil suits.
- An exception exists when the defendant admits the facts alleged by the plaintiff and contends that either in point of law or on some additional facts, the plaintiff is not entitled to any part of the relief sought.
- When both these conditions are satisfied, the defendant has the right to begin.
- Rule 1 is an enabling provision that allows the defendant to exercise this right only in specified circumstances.
- Rule 3 - Evidence Where Several Issues:
- Rule 3 applies when there are several issues framed and the burden of proving some issues lies on different parties.
- The party beginning has an option to either produce evidence on issues where the burden lies on the other party, or reserve it by way of answer to the other party's evidence.
- When evidence is reserved, the party beginning may produce rebuttal evidence after the other party has produced all evidence.
- The other party may then reply specially on the rebuttal evidence produced.
- However, the party beginning will be entitled to reply generally on the whole case.
- Rule 3 provides a procedural framework balancing the rights of both parties when multiple issues exist with different burden of proof.