The Supreme Court has made it mandatory for all petitioners filing bail and anticipatory bail petitions to disclose their criminal antecedents upfront, stating that the court was “taken for a ride” in several cases due to the concealment of such information.
A bench of justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan said a growing tendency was observed where individuals approach the court for bail or protection from arrest without revealing their involvement in other criminal cases. Often, such disclosures come only after notices have been issued to the state and interim relief secured, it noted.
“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 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 bench said in its April 3 order, adding that non-disclosure or suppression of material facts could itself be a ground for dismissal of the petition.
To be sure, the format and content of the ‘synopsis’ are governed by the Supreme Court rules, issued under Article 145 of the Constitution. These rules prescribe standard forms and requirements for different categories of petitions, including special leave petitions (SLPs) and public interest litigations (PILs).
The court was hearing a special leave petition filed by a man, accused of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, who had been in custody since May 2018. While the Allahabad high court denied him bail in October last year, he approached the top court seeking relief.
However, the petition failed to mention the petitioner’s criminal record, which included eight cases, including a conviction under Sections 379 and 411 of the IPC (theft and dishonestly receiving stolen property). This omission, the bench noted, was a deliberate suppression of material facts.
“We enquired…as to why there is no disclosure in the special leave petition about the petitioner’s criminal history. He submits that the pairokar (authorised representative) of the petitioner did not provide complete information,” the court noted.
“Had the petitioner’s criminal history been disclosed… we wonder whether notice on it would have at all been issued,” the bench remarked.
Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, noting that the suppression of the criminal record made the petitioner ineligible for the discretionary relief of bail. It also observed that the trial had progressed sufficiently, with statements of key prosecution witnesses already being recorded.
Laying down a binding precedent, the court directed that all future petitions seeking bail or protection from arrest must clearly mention in the ‘synopsis’ section whether the petitioner is a person of clean antecedents. If there are any pending or concluded criminal cases, full details along with the status of proceedings must be furnished.
“Should the disclosure be found to be incorrect subsequently, that itself could be considered as a ground for dismissal of the special leave petition,” the bench made clear.
Ends