However, before parting, we consider it necessary to dwell on one aspect. 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. In such cases where involvement is not disclosed, on a prima facie satisfaction that long incarceration without reasonable progress in the trial is invading the right to life of the accused or that the offences for which the FIR has been registered are not too serious, notices are issued and only thereafter, information of criminal antecedents is being provided in the counter affidavits filed by the respective respondents-States, as in the present case. 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. {Para 11}
12. We, accordingly, direct that henceforth each individual who approaches this Court with a Special Leave Petition (Criminal) challenging orders passed by the high courts/sessions courts declining prayers under Sections 438/439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or under Sections 482/483, Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita shall mandatorily disclose in the ‘SYNOPSIS’ that either he is a man of clean antecedents or if he has knowledge of his involvement in any criminal case, he shall clearly indicate the same together with the stage that the proceedings, arising out of such case, have reached. Should the disclosure be found to be incorrect subsequently, that itself could be considered as a ground for dismissal of the special leave petition.
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 1400/2025
MUNNESH Vs STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
Date : 03-04-2025 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following order
1. The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad by the impugned judgment and
order dated 3rd October, 2023 has rejected the petitioner’s prayer for bail.
2. The petitioner was arrested on 26th May, 2018 in connection with a First
Information Report1
registered under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 18602
.
3. The trial is in progress.
4. Although it is revealed from the charge-sheet that the prosecution
intended to examine 22 (twenty-two) witnesses to drive home the charges
against the petitioner, in paragraph 13 of the counter affidavit, there is a
1
FIR
2
IPC
2
statement that the prosecution does not wish to examine all 22 (twenty-two)
witnesses, earlier proposed, and that the number of prosecution witnesses to be
examined is limited to 8 (eight) now; also that, recording of the statement of
P.W.8 is now in progress.
5. The petitioner’s criminal history has also been brought on record by such
counter affidavit. The details of the cases pending/closed against the petitioner,
8 (eight) in all, are provided in paragraph 15 of such affidavit.
6. There is no disclosure in the special leave petition as regards the
petitioner’s criminal antecedents, which includes conviction in one case under Sections 379 and 411 of the IPC.
7. We enquired from the learned counsel for the petitioner as to why there is no disclosure in the special leave petition about the petitioner’s criminal history. He submits that the pairokar of the petitioner did not provide complete information.
8. Had the petitioner’s criminal history been disclosed in the special leave petition, we wonder whether notice on it would have at all been issued.
9. 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.
10. The special leave petition, accordingly, stands dismissed.
11. However, before parting, we consider it necessary to dwell on one aspect. 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. In such cases where involvement is not disclosed, on a prima facie satisfaction that long incarceration without reasonable progress in the trial is invading the right to life of the accused or that the offences for which the FIR has been registered are not too serious, notices are issued and only thereafter, information of criminal antecedents is being provided in the counter affidavits filed by the respective respondents-States, as in the present case. 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.
12. We, accordingly, direct that henceforth each individual who approaches this Court with a Special Leave Petition (Criminal) challenging orders passed by the high courts/sessions courts declining prayers under Sections 438/439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or under Sections 482/483, Bharatiya Nagrik
Suraksha Sanhita shall mandatorily disclose in the ‘SYNOPSIS’ that either he is a man of clean antecedents or if he has knowledge of his involvement in any criminal case, he shall clearly indicate the same together with the stage that the proceedings, arising out of such case, have reached. Should the disclosure be found to be incorrect subsequently, that itself could be considered as a ground for dismissal of the special leave petition.
13. We are conscious that complying with this direction could result in inconvenience for some; however, having noticed that orders dated 13th October, 2023 and 19th October, 2023 of this Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 12876 of 2023 and SLP (Crl.) No. 2863 of 20234
, respectively, requiring steps to be initiated for eliciting proper and correct information from the individuals seeking orders of regular bail/pre-arrest bail have not produced the desired results, we have proceeded to make the aforesaid direction in the institutional interest so
3 Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab
4
Sheikh Bhola v. State of Bihar
4
that proceedings before this Court are not taken lightly by those who choose to
approach it and the process of law is not abused.
14. Registry is directed to bring this order to the notice of all concerned, in
such manner as deemed appropriate, for compliance till such time the rules are
amended in terms of the orders dated 13th October, 2023 and 19th October,
2023, referred to above.
(JATINDER KAUR) (SUDHIR KUMAR SHARMA)
P.S. to REGISTRAR COURT MASTER (NSH)
Print Page
No comments:
Post a Comment