SC directs all courts to check no litigant suppresses facts for bail

The Supreme Court has directed all courts to ensure that any litigant who approaches for bail should not mislead the court by suppressing facts and directed that every bail application would henceforth disclose details of earlier bail pleas moved by the same litigant and even inform about any pending proceeding in this regard.

The direction was issued by a bench of justices Vikram Nath and Rajeev Bindal after it came across an order passed by the Odisha high court granting bail to one Kusha Duruka charged under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act at a time when the top court was hearing his appeal challenging an earlier order by the same high court rejecting bail. The court found out that the accused tried to deceive the high court by suppressing the pendency of his appeal before the top court.

Duruka was arrested on February 3, 2022 along with one Gangesh Kumar Thakur for possession and transportation of 23.8 kg ganja. A case was registered under section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, 1985. After the trial court refused him bail, he approached the Odisha HC which dismissed his appeal on March 3, 2023. Against this order, he approached the SC. Even as these proceedings were pending, on October 11 last year, the HC granted him bail and when the top court enquired how this was possible when the matter was pending before it, a report was called from the state government in this regard.

The principal secretary in the state law department filed an affidavit in the top court last month stating that the counsel appearing for the state in the HC neither had the knowledge of the matter pending in the top court nor about the dismissal of the first bail application.

Refusing to allow such litigants to get the better of the justice delivery system, the SC said, “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… In the last 40 years, the values have gone down and now litigants can go to any extent to mislead the court. They have no respect for the truth.”

In “our opinion”, the bench on Friday added, “To avoid any confusion in future it would be appropriate to mandatorily mention in the application(s) filed for grant of bail details and copies of order(s) passed in the earlier bail application(s) filed by the petitioner which have been already decided.”

Further, the directions by the court required details of any pending bail application filed by the petitioner before any lower or higher court, and if none is pending, “a clear statement to that effect has to be made.”

Justice Bindal, writing the judgment for the bench, was critical of the litigant’s conduct but refused to take the drastic step of setting aside the bail. Instead, it directed the accused to deposit a cost of ₹10,000 as cost with the Mediation and Conciliation centre attached to the Odisha high court within eight weeks and submit proof of compliance before the top court.

The court said, “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.”

The bench observed, “Truth constituted an integral part of the justice-delivery system in the pre-Independence era. However, post-Independence period has seen drastic changes in our value system. Materialism has overshadowed the old ethos and the quest for personal gain has become so intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of facts in court proceedings.”

This is nothing but degradation of moral values in the society, may be because of our education system, the Court observed, while noting that nowadays “we are more happy to hear anything except truth; read anything except truth; speak anything except truth and believe anything except truth.”

The court said that its directions were made with a view to streamline the proceedings and avoid anomalies with reference to the bail applications being filed in the cases pending trial and even for suspension of sentence.

The slew of directions further stated, “In case it is mentioned on the top of the bail application or any other place which is clearly visible, that the application for bail is either first, second or third and so on…if this fact is mentioned in the order, it will enable the next higher court to appreciate the arguments in that light.”

The court directed the registry of the court where the bail application is filed to file 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,” the order said.

In an earlier decision in Pradhani Jani’s case decided in May 2023, the top court had held that all bail applications filed by the different accused in the same FIR should be listed before the same high court judge except in cases where the judge has superannuated or transferred or otherwise incapacitated to hear the matter. “The system needs to be followed meticulously to avoid any discrepancies in the orders,” the recent judgment said.

The Court further held that it will be the duty of the Investigating Officer or the police officer assisting the prosecution to apprise about past orders, bail applications or other proceedings in the same crime case and directed the lawyers appearing for the parties before court to conduct themselves like officers of the court.