Details & copies of orders passed in earlier bail applications which are pending trial or have been already decided, must be mandatorily mentioned: SC enumerates particulars to be mentioned in applications filed for grant of bail
Justices Vikram Nath & Rajesh Bindal [19-04-2024]

Read Order:  KUSHA DURUKA v. THE STATE OF ODISHA [SC- CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 303 OF 2024]

Tulip Kanth

New Delhi, January 22, 2024: The Supreme Court has issued suggestions and directions to streamline the proceedings and avoid anomalies with reference to the bail applications being filed in the cases pending trial and for suspension of sentence.

The Division Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Rajesh Bindal referred to the Top Court’s judgments in K.D. Sharma Vs. Steel Authority of India Limited and others; Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others; Moti Lal Songara Vs. Prem Prakash @ Pappu and another wherein it was held that one of the two cherished basic values by Indian society for centuries is "satya" (truth) and the same had been put under the carpet by the petitioner. Reference was also made to Saumya Chaurasia v. Directorate of Enforcement where the litigant tried to misrepresent by concealing material facts.

Noting that there has been changes in the value system post-independence, the Bench said, “Now it is well settled that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final. Suppression of material facts from the court of law, is actually playing fraud with the court. The maxim supressio veri, expression faisi, i.e. suppression of the truth is equivalent to the expression of falsehood, gets attracted. It’s nothing but degradation of moral values in the society, may be because of our education system.”

In the present matter for grant of bail pending trial,the appellant claimed that he was in custody since 03.02.2022 in connection with crime registered under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The allegation in the FIR was that the appellant and the co-accused Gangesh Kumar Thakur @ Gangesh Thakur were in exclusive and conscious possession of 23.8 kg Ganja and were transporting the same. The appellant and his co-accused filed an application for release on bail pending trial before the Sessions Judge but the same was rejected.

When the accused approached the High Court with their bail pleas, the Court allowed the bail application filed by the co-accused but the appellant’s plea was rejected. The appellant then filed SLP before the Apex Court. The appellant’s Counsel brought it to the Court’s notice that that during the pendency of the present matter, the High Court vide order dated 11.10.2023 had granted bail to him. However, the Top Court on 06.12.2023, noted that the High Court’s order didn’t mention the fact that it was the second bail application filed by the appellant nor pendency of the SLP before the Top Court, in which notice had already been issued. The matter was listed again on December 13, 2023.

A report had been received by the Top Court wherein the comments of Judge B of the High Court were annexed with the original file of second bail application of appellant. It was mentioned therein that at the time of hearing of the second bail application, the court was not apprised of the factum of pendency of the SLP before this Court, in which notice had already been issued on 22.09.2023.

A perusal of the paper book in second bail application showed that there was a report annexed by the Registry in the matter which mentioned about the earlier two bail applications filed in the FIR in- question. The first bail application filed by the appellant was disposed of on 06.03.2023. Bail application filed by the co-accused Gangesh Kumar Thakur was disposed of on 17.01.2023. The next one was the second bail application filed by the appellant.

Though Standing Order directed the Registry to annex all the orders passed in the earlier bail applications by different accused in the same FIR, however, the order passed by the High Court in the case of the appellant, rejecting his earlier bail application, did not form part of the bail application before the High Court. Only the order dated 17.01.2023 passed in the bail application, filed by the co-accused Gangesh Kumar Thakur was annexed.

Moreover, in the list of dates and events as well as in the body of the bail application, the appellant did not mention regarding disposal of his earlier bail application by the High Court and also filing of the SLP in this Court. During the pendency of the matter before the Top Court a fresh bail application was filed not only before the Trial Court but even before the High Court. The High Court even granted bail to the appellant. In the bail application filed before the High Court, it was not mentioned that the same was second bail application filed by the appellant.

The Bench noticed that in the order dated 17.01.2023 vide which bail application, of the co-accused Gangesh Kumar Thakur was allowed by the High Court, the State Counsel did not point out the factum of pendency of another bail application filed by the co-accused arising out of the same FIR at that stage.

Thus, the Bench held that in order to avoid any confusion in future it would be appropriate to mandatorily mention in the applications filed for grant of bail:

• Details and copies of orders passed in the earlier bail applications filed by the petitioner which have been already decided.
• Details of any bail applications filed by the petitioner, which is pending either in any court, below the court in question or the higher court, and if none is pending, a clear statement to that effect has to be made.
• The registry of the court should also annex a report generated from the system about decided or pending bail application(s) in the crime case in question. The same system needs to be followed even in the case of private complaints as all cases filed in the trial courts are assigned specific numbers (CNR No.), even if no FIR number is there.
• It should be the duty of the Investigating Officer/any officer assisting the State Counsel in court to apprise him of the order(s), if any, passed by the court with reference to different bail applications or other proceedings in the same crime case. And the counsel appearing for the parties have to conduct themselves truly like officers of the Court.

The Top Court also noted that it had already directed vide order passed in Pradhani Jani v. The State of Odisha that all bail applications filed by the different accused in the same FIR should be listed before the same Judge except in cases where the Judge has superannuated or has been transferred or otherwise incapacitated to hear the matter. “The system needs to be followed meticulously to avoid any discrepancies in the orders”, the Bench added.

The Bench didn’t take an extreme step to cancel the petitioner’s bail. However, dismissing the appeal as infructuous, the Top Court burdened the appellant with a token cost of Rs 10,000.