The court said it usually considers bail pleas where accused persons have been in jail for long periods without trial or in cases where the registered offences are not very serious. However, it often discovers the full criminal history of the accused only after state governments submit their counter-affidavits.
New Delhi, April 4: The Supreme Court has expressed strong disapproval of a rising trend where people seeking bail or protection from arrest hide their past criminal records.
A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan observed that many individuals do not reveal their involvement in previous criminal cases while filing special leave petitions (SLPs) before the top court. Due to this suppression of facts, the Supreme Court rejected the bail plea of a murder accused.
“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 court noted that it had been lenient in such matters in the past, but now, strict action was needed to prevent further misuse of the legal process.
“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.”
Going forward, the Supreme Court has made it compulsory for anyone filing a special leave petition (criminal) to clearly mention their criminal history in the synopsis section of their plea.
This applies to cases challenging decisions of High Courts or Sessions Courts under Sections 438/439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (bail or anticipatory bail) and Sections 482/483 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita.
The court ruled:
“He shall clearly indicate the same together with the stage that the proceedings, arising out of such case, have reached.”
If any false or incomplete information is found later, it will be a strong reason to dismiss the special leave petition.
The court said it usually considers bail pleas where accused persons have been in jail for long periods without trial or in cases where the registered offences are not very serious. However, it often discovers the full criminal history of the accused only after state governments submit their counter-affidavits.
“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.”
The Supreme Court acknowledged that its new direction may cause some inconvenience but stressed that protecting the institution’s credibility was more important.
The bench noted that this was not the first time the top court had emphasized full disclosure of criminal history in bail applications. Similar observations were made in two earlier judgments on October 13, 2023, and October 19, 2023.
On October 13, the Supreme Court had pointed out that crucial details such as the accused’s age, previous bail applications, chargesheets, and the number of examined witnesses were often missing in special leave petitions.
“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.”
The court had then directed the Secretary General and Registrar (Judicial) of the Supreme Court to ensure that such details were mandatorily included in petitions.
Similarly, in another case on October 19, 2023, the Supreme Court noted that a petitioner had not disclosed his criminal history, as pointed out by the Bihar government.
The case in question involved a murder accused who had challenged an October 3, 2023 order of the Allahabad High Court, which had denied him bail. The Uttar Pradesh government informed the Supreme Court that the accused was facing trial, and witnesses were being examined.
Additionally, the state revealed that the accused had a history of eight criminal cases and was previously convicted in a theft case.
The Supreme Court bench ruled:
“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.”
To ensure that all relevant rules are followed, the Supreme Court has directed its registry to widely circulate this order for compliance.
“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…”
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
