Saying it was “taken for a ride”, the Supreme Court has frowned upon a “growing trend” where persons suppress their criminal history while seeking bail or protection from coercive action.
A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan on Thursday (April 3, 2025) said, “A growing trend is being noticed of individuals, seeking from this court the concession of bail or concession of protection from arrest, not disclosing in the special leave petitions their involvement in other criminal cases.”
The bench, as a result, rejected the bail plea of a murder accused finding “suppression of material facts”.
“This court has shown leniency in the past but we think it is time that such state of affairs is not allowed to continue further,” it noted.
Going forward, the court said, every person moving the top court with a “special leave petition (criminal)” against the orders of the high courts or sessions courts denying them reliefs under Sections 438/439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (bail or anticipatory bail), 1973, or under Sections 482/483, Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita should mandatorily disclose in the “synopsis” whether they have “clean antecedents” or possess the knowledge of being involved in a criminal case.
“He shall clearly indicate the same together with the stage that the proceedings, arising out of such case, have reached,” it added.
Grounds for dismissing petition
The bench’s April 3 order said if the disclosure was found to be incorrect subsequently, it would be grounds in itself to dismiss the special leave petition.
The top court said it entertained the pleas and issued notices in several such cases after a prima facie satisfaction that there existed a long incarceration without reasonable progress in the trial, curtailing the right to life of the accused or that the offences for which the FIR were registered were not too serious.
However, it said it was only after the state filed its counter affidavits on the bail or anticipatory bail pleas that the criminal antecedents of the accused were disclosed.
“The result is that this court, being the apex court of the country, is being taken for a ride. This court has shown leniency in the past but we think it is time that such state of affairs is not allowed to continue further,” it added.
“Institutional interest”
While being “conscious” that complying with such as direction would inconvenience some, the court outlined the “institutional interest” so that the proceedings before it were not taken lightly.
The bench observed previously too, in two different criminal cases, the apex court batted for a complete disclosure of information in pleas for bail and pre-arrest bail.
“Registry is directed to bring this order to the notice of all concerned, in such a manner as deemed appropriate, for compliance till such time the rules are amended in terms of the orders dated October 13, 2023 and October 19, 2023…”, it said.
The murder accused before the top court challenged the October 3, 2023 order of the Allahabad High Court rejecting his bail plea.
The Uttar Pradesh government informed the bench that the trial was underway with the examination of witnesses.
The accused was involved in eight cases and in one of the cases of theft he was convicted, it alleged.
The bench said, “Be that as it may, since the petitioner has suppressed material facts with regard to his involvement in criminal cases, he is not entitled to the discretionary relief of bail. Even otherwise, the trial has progressed reasonably and hence, no case for releasing the petitioner on bail has been set up.”
On October 13, 2023, the top court in a criminal case noticed the filing of special leave petitions bereft of crucial information such as the age of the accused or the petitioner.
“In criminal cases, the necessary information such as number of occasions when the parties seeking bail (in cases of bail) have reported to the police or investigating authority; complete chargesheet, if any, the order on charge, if any, and the number of witnesses examined is usually not disclosed,” it had said.
The court had therefore underlined the necessity for appropriate changes in the rules.
It had then asked for apprising the secretary general and registrar (judicial) of the top court to ensure the disclosure of all necessary and vital information to avoid wastage of time and adjournments.
Similarly, on October 19, 2023, the top court while hearing another criminal case noted the submission of Bihar government that accused in the criminal case had not disclosed his criminal antecedents.
Published – April 05, 2025 07:00 am IST