CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----47220 47220 47220 47220 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT 107 107 107 107 Kaushalya Rani Union of India thr. Date of decision: Date of decision: Date of decision: Date of decision: Date of Uploading : 0 Date of Uploading : 0 Date of Uploading : 0 Date of Uploading : 0 CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: Present: SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL 1. has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking grant of anticipatory/pre arrest bail under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘BNSS’) registered under Sections 8, 21 Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, with the Narcotics Control Bureau, Chandigarh/Sahnewal, Ludhiana. 2. lis in the petition in hand (i) grams of heroin During the course of have made a disclosure 47220 47220 47220 47220----2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH Kaushalya Rani V/s Union of India thr. the office of Narcotics Date of decision: Date of decision: Date of decision: Date of decision: 03.09.2026 03.09.2026 03.09.2026 03.09.2026 Date of Uploading : 0 Date of Uploading : 0 Date of Uploading : 0 Date of Uploading : 07777.09.2026 .09.2026 .09.2026 .09.2026 CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Saksham Dudeja, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Special Public Prosecutor (NCB) with Ms. Indu Bala Sharma, Advocate Mr. Amrit Kashyap, Advocate ***** SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL, J. , J. , J. , J. Present petition (hereinafter referred to as ‘ has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking grant of anticipatory/pre arrest bail under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘BNSS’) in Crime No. 27 dated 23.12.2025, registered under Sections 8, 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, with the Narcotics Control Bureau, Chandigarh/Sahnewal, Ludhiana. Shorn of non-essential details petition in hand is adumbrated thus: The genesis of the case lies in the alleged recovery of 117 grams of heroin stated to be effected from co the course of investigation, co-accused have made a disclosure statement implicat 1111 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CRM CRM CRM CRM----36362 36362 36362 36362----2026 in/& 2026 in/& 2026 in/& 2026 in/& CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----47220 47220 47220 47220----2026 2026 2026 2026 (O&M) (O&M) (O&M) (O&M) ....Petitioner he office of Narcotics Control Bureau ....Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Saksham Dudeja, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Special Public Prosecutor (NCB) with vocate & Mr. Amrit Kashyap, Advocate for the respondent –NCB. (hereinafter referred to as ‘petition in hand’ has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking grant of anticipatory/pre arrest bail under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in Crime No. 27 dated 23.12.2025, and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, with the Narcotics Control Bureau, details, the relevant factual milieu of the is adumbrated thus: The genesis of the case lies in the alleged recovery of 117. from co-accused –– Manjeet Kaur. accused –– Manjeet Kaur is stated to implicating the petitioner (herein) (O&M) (O&M) (O&M) (O&M) petition in hand’) has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking grant of anticipatory/pre- arrest bail under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in Crime No. 27 dated 23.12.2025, and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, with the Narcotics Control Bureau, of the .61 Manjeet Kaur. Manjeet Kaur is stated to (herein), MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.07 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----47220 47220 47220 47220 alleging that the contraband prosecution material allegedly indicating contact between the petitioner and the co accused. (ii) learned Special Judge, Ludhiana, vide order dated 01.06.2026, the petitioner (herein) has approached this Court by way of the (iii) in hand, has specifically stated as under: (iv) counsel appearing for the that the petitioner ha she is involved in other FIR(s) 47220 47220 47220 47220----2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M) alleging that the contraband in question prosecution has also relied upon the call detail records material allegedly indicating contact between the petitioner and the co Upon rejection of her plea for grant of anticipatory bail learned Special Judge, Ludhiana, vide order dated 01.06.2026, the petitioner (herein) has approached this Court by way of the The petitioner, while describing , has specifically stated as under: “12. That the petitioner is first time offender and there is no other case registered against him under either the provisions of the NDPS Act or under any other section of Indian P whole life is at stake due to the alleged false implication. As per of Instructions regarding NDPS Act (a) Whether the Petitioner is/was accused in any other case(s) registered against him anywhere in India? IN case proceedings in the case(s). – No (b) If the petitioner is on bail in any case(s) pending against him or sentence awarded to him in any other case(s) has been suspended specific mention is required to be made3. – (c) Number and title of any other pending case(s) against the Petitioner in the Court where such a case/petition is moved, should be mentioned – No. (d) Whether he has ever been declared proclaimed offender in any case or not? - No” At the time of preliminary hearing on 24.08.2026 counsel appearing for the respondent - NCB ha that the petitioner had not disclosed his complete antecedents inasmuch as he is involved in other FIR(s), whereupon “At this juncture, learned Special Public Prosecutor (NCB), on instructions, submits that the petitioner (herein) is involved in multiple other cases, but he has not disclosed them. 2222 had been procured from her. The also relied upon the call detail records (CDR) and other material allegedly indicating contact between the petitioner and the co Upon rejection of her plea for grant of anticipatory bail by the learned Special Judge, Ludhiana, vide order dated 01.06.2026, the petitioner (herein) has approached this Court by way of the petition in hand. The petitioner, while describing her antecedents in the petition That the petitioner is first time offender and there is no other case registered against him under either the provisions of the NDPS Act or under any other section of Indian Penal Code expect the present one. His whole life is at stake due to the alleged false implication. As per of Instructions regarding NDPS Act (a) Whether the Petitioner is/was accused in any other case(s) registered against him anywhere in India? IN case it is so, update status of the If the petitioner is on bail in any case(s) pending against him or sentence awarded to him in any other case(s) has been suspended specific – No mber and title of any other pending case(s) against the Petitioner in the Court where such a case/petition is moved, should be (d) Whether he has ever been declared proclaimed offender in any case or minary hearing on 24.08.2026, learned NCB had raised a specific objection not disclosed his complete antecedents inasmuch as whereupon the following order was passed: At this juncture, learned Special Public Prosecutor (NCB), on instructions, submits that the petitioner (herein) is involved in multiple other cases, but he has not disclosed them. had been procured from her. The and other material allegedly indicating contact between the petitioner and the co- by the learned Special Judge, Ludhiana, vide order dated 01.06.2026, the petitioner petition That the petitioner is first time offender and there is no other case registered against him under either the provisions of the NDPS Act or enal Code expect the present one. His (a) Whether the Petitioner is/was accused in any other case(s) registered it is so, update status of the If the petitioner is on bail in any case(s) pending against him or sentence awarded to him in any other case(s) has been suspended specific mber and title of any other pending case(s) against the Petitioner in the Court where such a case/petition is moved, should be (d) Whether he has ever been declared proclaimed offender in any case or , learned raised a specific objection not disclosed his complete antecedents inasmuch as assed: At this juncture, learned Special Public Prosecutor (NCB), on instructions, submits that the petitioner (herein) is involved in multiple MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.07 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----47220 47220 47220 47220 (v) 36815-2026 The said reply, while thus: (vi) way of miscellaneous application bearing No. CRM she has disclosed being involved in other cases/FIR(s). petitioner Rival submissions Rival submissions Rival submissions Rival submissions 3. objection raised by learned counsel for the NCB regard to the same w learned counsel, 47220 47220 47220 47220----2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M) Respondent – NCB is directed to file reply; especially qua antecedents of the petitioner. List on 03.09.2026. Be taken up in the urgent cause list. The respondent-NCB has moved an application 2026) seeking to place on record The said reply, while delineating the antecedents of the petitioner, reflects “2. That the petitioner is a habitual offender and number of cases had been already registered against the petitioner. The details of the same are as under: S.No. Particulars 1 FIR No.365/2017 NDPS Act P.S. Sidhuwa Bet 2 FIR No.83/2023 NDPS Act P.S. Sadar Jagraon 3 FIR No.64/2017 NDPS Act P.S. Sidhuwa Bet 4 FIR No.07/2025 P.S. City Jagraon The petitioner has now sought to amend the way of miscellaneous application bearing No. CRM she has disclosed being involved in other cases/FIR(s). It is in the aforesaid factual petitioner has approached this Court by way of the Rival submissions Rival submissions Rival submissions Rival submissions Learned counsel for the petitioner objection raised by learned counsel for the NCB regard to non-disclosure of the antecedents the same was neither intentional nor with any oblique motive. learned counsel, the petitioner did not deliberately seek to mislead this 3333 NCB is directed to file reply; especially qua Be taken up in the urgent cause list. ” NCB has moved an application (No.CRM seeking to place on record its reply to the petition in hand delineating the antecedents of the petitioner, reflects That the petitioner is a habitual offender and number of cases had been already registered against the petitioner. The details of the same are 017 NDPS Act P.S. Sidhuwa Bet FIR No.83/2023 NDPS Act P.S. Sadar Jagraon FIR No.64/2017 NDPS Act P.S. Sidhuwa Bet FIR No.07/2025 P.S. City Jagraon The petitioner has now sought to amend the petition in hand way of miscellaneous application bearing No. CRM-36362-2026 whereby she has disclosed being involved in other cases/FIR(s). factual milieu of the case in hand, the approached this Court by way of the petition in hand. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while responding to the objection raised by learned counsel for the NCB on the preceding date with disclosure of the antecedents of the petitioner, has iterated that as neither intentional nor with any oblique motive. According to the petitioner did not deliberately seek to mislead this NCB is directed to file reply; especially qua No.CRM- hand. delineating the antecedents of the petitioner, reflects That the petitioner is a habitual offender and number of cases had been already registered against the petitioner. The details of the same are petition in hand by 2026 whereby of the case in hand, the , while responding to the on the preceding date with that According to the petitioner did not deliberately seek to mislead this MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.07 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----47220 47220 47220 47220 Court or to derive any undue advantage by withholding any material fact. Immediately upon the objection being raised preliminary stage, the petitioner has filed an appropriate application seeking amendment of the been registered against subsequent disclosure and reflects any material fact from this Court. 3.1 petitioner the FIR in question present at the place of recovery recovery surfaced only during statement the alleged recovery of 117 accused –– regular bail by the learned Special Court Learned counsel has also contended that challan has been so, no further recovery is likely to be effected particularly when contraband has already been recovered from the co custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required in the factual of the petition in hand the process of law and, thus, her behind 47220 47220 47220 47220----2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M) Court or to derive any undue advantage by withholding any material fact. mmediately upon the objection being raised preliminary stage, the petitioner has filed an appropriate application seeking amendment of the petition in hand and has disclosed the other registered against the petitioner. It has been further contended subsequent disclosure, by itself, demonstrates the reflects that there was no intention on part any material fact from this Court. As regard the merits of the case petitioner has contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated the FIR in question as she was neither nominated in the FIR nor was she at the place of recovery. It has been further contended that whatsoever has been effected from surfaced only during the course of investigation on the basis of statement of the co-accused – Manjeet Kaur the alleged recovery of 117.61 grams of her –– Manjeet Kaur, who has already been granted the concession of bail by the learned Special Court Learned counsel has also contended that as been presented before the competent Court of jurisdiction. , no further recovery is likely to be effected particularly when contraband has already been recovered from the co custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required in the factual petition in hand. Moreover, the petitioner has no intention of evading the process of law and, thus, no useful purpose would be served by sending her behind the bars. 4444 Court or to derive any undue advantage by withholding any material fact. mmediately upon the objection being raised by the respondent - NCB at the preliminary stage, the petitioner has filed an appropriate application seeking and has disclosed the other FIR(s) having It has been further contended that the demonstrates the bona fide of the petitioner that there was no intention on part of the petitioner to suppress As regard the merits of the case, learned counsel for the that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into nominated in the FIR nor was she . It has been further contended that whatsoever has been effected from the petitioner and her name investigation on the basis of disclosure Kaur. According to learned counsel, 61 grams of heroin has been effected from co has already been granted the concession of bail by the learned Special Court vide order dated 04.02.2026 Learned counsel has also contended that upon completion of investigation presented before the competent Court of jurisdiction. More , no further recovery is likely to be effected particularly when the alleged contraband has already been recovered from the co-accused and, thus, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required in the factual milieu . Moreover, the petitioner has no intention of evading no useful purpose would be served by sending Court or to derive any undue advantage by withholding any material fact. NCB at the preliminary stage, the petitioner has filed an appropriate application seeking having that the of the petitioner to suppress , learned counsel for the into nominated in the FIR nor was she . It has been further contended that no her name disclosure According to learned counsel, effected from co- has already been granted the concession of vide order dated 04.02.2026. investigation, More the alleged thus, the milieu . Moreover, the petitioner has no intention of evading no useful purpose would be served by sending MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.07 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----47220 47220 47220 47220 bail is entreated for 4. NCB has opposed the petition in hand by arguing that the petitioner has not approached thi the respondent not a first facie reflect learned counsel has contended that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature and relate to recovery of weighing 117 learned counsel, name of the petitioner has surfaced during the course of investigation on the basis of the di been further contended that the showing contact between the petitioner and require p Furthermore, the ascertain persons involved in the narcotics network and unearth the entire chain of supply. On the strength of these submissions, the dismissal of the hand is prayed for. 5. gone through the Prime Issue Prime Issue Prime Issue Prime Issue 47220 47220 47220 47220----2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M) On the strength of these submissions, bail is entreated for. In oppugnation, learned counsel appearing for the respondent NCB has opposed the petition in hand by arguing that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands. Referring to reply filed on behalf of the respondent-NCB, learned counsel has pointed out that first time offender as she is involved in 04 other reflect her continued involvement in learned counsel has contended that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature and relate to recovery of weighing 117.61 grams from co-accused Manjeet Kaur. According to d counsel, name of the petitioner has surfaced during the course of investigation on the basis of the disclosure made by the co been further contended that the prosecution has relied upon the CDRs showing contact between the petitioner and require proper investigation and cannot be brushed aside at this stage. Furthermore, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary to ascertain the source of procurement of the contraband, identify other involved in the narcotics network and unearth the entire chain of On the strength of these submissions, the dismissal of the is prayed for. I have heard the learned counsel for the gone through the available record of the case. Prime Issue Prime Issue Prime Issue Prime Issue 5555 strength of these submissions, the grant of anticipatory , learned counsel appearing for the respondent NCB has opposed the petition in hand by arguing that the petitioner has not Referring to reply filed on behalf of NCB, learned counsel has pointed out that the petitioner is offender as she is involved in 04 other cases which prima continued involvement in criminal activities. On merits, learned counsel has contended that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature and relate to recovery of commercial quantity of heroin accused Manjeet Kaur. According to d counsel, name of the petitioner has surfaced during the course of sclosure made by the co-accused. It has prosecution has relied upon the CDRs showing contact between the petitioner and the other accused persons which roper investigation and cannot be brushed aside at this stage. custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary to source of procurement of the contraband, identify other involved in the narcotics network and unearth the entire chain of On the strength of these submissions, the dismissal of the petition I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and have available record of the case. anticipatory , learned counsel appearing for the respondent – NCB has opposed the petition in hand by arguing that the petitioner has not Referring to reply filed on behalf of the petitioner is prima On merits, learned counsel has contended that the allegations against the petitioner are ommercial quantity of heroin accused Manjeet Kaur. According to d counsel, name of the petitioner has surfaced during the course of It has prosecution has relied upon the CDRs r accused persons which roper investigation and cannot be brushed aside at this stage. custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary to source of procurement of the contraband, identify other involved in the narcotics network and unearth the entire chain of petition in and have MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.07 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----47220 47220 47220 47220 6. whether the petitioner ought to be granted the concession of anticipatory bail in the factual an application/petition seeking dismissed on the sole ground of deliberate suppression of criminal antecedents/previous criminal involvements, w matrix or underlying merits of the case? Analysis (re: law) Analysis (re: law) Analysis (re: law) Analysis (re: law) 7. BNSS (erstwhile Section 438 Cr.P.C.) is an extraordinary discretionary and, equitable dispensation arrest and police highhandedness, pre judicial discretion rather than statutory entitlement. Because a bail applicant/petitioner seeking anticipatory bail invokes the equitable jurisdiction of the court to seek a pre is bound to be accompanied by uncompromising candor and complete disclosure in view of the doctrine of utmost good faith; w foundational pillar upon which extraordinary judicial remedies rest. While our criminal justice system purports to follow the adversarial model of adjudication, it cannot be reduced to a private contractual n parties retain the prerogative to disclose or conceal facts at their convenience. Judicial discretion is not a commodity to be bartered upon selective disclosures, nor is the court a stage for legal sleight of hand. A party invoking the ex 47220 47220 47220 47220----2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M) The issue that arises for consideration before this Court is as to whether the petitioner ought to be granted the concession of anticipatory bail in the factual milieu of the petition in hand. The seminal legal question that arises for cogitation is whether an application/petition seeking anticipatory dismissed on the sole ground of deliberate suppression of criminal antecedents/previous criminal involvements, w r underlying merits of the case? Analysis (re: law) Analysis (re: law) Analysis (re: law) Analysis (re: law) The jurisdiction to grant anticipatory BNSS (erstwhile Section 438 Cr.P.C.) is an extraordinary discretionary and, equitable dispensation. Designed as a buffer against unnecessary/malicious arrest and police highhandedness, pre-arrest protection rests entirely on judicial discretion rather than statutory entitlement. Because a bail applicant/petitioner seeking anticipatory bail invokes the equitable jurisdiction of the court to seek a pre is bound to be accompanied by uncompromising candor and complete disclosure in view of the doctrine of Uberrima Fides utmost good faith; which is not a mere rhetorical ornament, but the foundational pillar upon which extraordinary judicial remedies rest. While our criminal justice system purports to follow the adversarial model of adjudication, it cannot be reduced to a private contractual n parties retain the prerogative to disclose or conceal facts at their convenience. Judicial discretion is not a commodity to be bartered upon selective disclosures, nor is the court a stage for legal sleight of hand. A party invoking the extraordinary statutory concession of pre 6666 The issue that arises for consideration before this Court is as to whether the petitioner ought to be granted the concession of anticipatory petition in hand. The seminal legal question that arises for cogitation is whether nticipatory bail can, and indeed ought to be dismissed on the sole ground of deliberate suppression of criminal antecedents/previous criminal involvements, without adverting to the factual nticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS (erstwhile Section 438 Cr.P.C.) is an extraordinary discretionary and, . Designed as a buffer against unnecessary/malicious arrest protection rests entirely on judicial discretion rather than statutory entitlement. Because a bail applicant/petitioner seeking anticipatory bail invokes the extraordinary equitable jurisdiction of the court to seek a pre-emptive protection, the plea is bound to be accompanied by uncompromising candor and complete Uberrima Fides, i.e. the requirement of mere rhetorical ornament, but the foundational pillar upon which extraordinary judicial remedies rest. While our criminal justice system purports to follow the adversarial model of adjudication, it cannot be reduced to a private contractual negotiation where parties retain the prerogative to disclose or conceal facts at their convenience. Judicial discretion is not a commodity to be bartered upon selective disclosures, nor is the court a stage for legal sleight of hand. A traordinary statutory concession of pre-arrest liberty The issue that arises for consideration before this Court is as to whether the petitioner ought to be granted the concession of anticipatory The seminal legal question that arises for cogitation is whether and indeed ought to be, dismissed on the sole ground of deliberate suppression of criminal ithout adverting to the factual ail under Section 482 BNSS (erstwhile Section 438 Cr.P.C.) is an extraordinary discretionary and, . Designed as a buffer against unnecessary/malicious arrest protection rests entirely on judicial discretion rather than statutory entitlement. Because a bail extraordinary emptive protection, the plea is bound to be accompanied by uncompromising candor and complete , i.e. the requirement of mere rhetorical ornament, but the foundational pillar upon which extraordinary judicial remedies rest. While our criminal justice system purports to follow the adversarial model of egotiation where parties retain the prerogative to disclose or conceal facts at their convenience. Judicial discretion is not a commodity to be bartered upon selective disclosures, nor is the court a stage for legal sleight of hand. A arrest liberty MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.07 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----47220 47220 47220 47220 owes a solemn duty of unreserved candor to the Court; failure whereof strikes at the very root of the adjudicatory process. The timeless maxim suppressio veri, suggestio falsi to the suggestion of a falsehood, applies with uncompromising force. Where a litigant attempts to play "hide and seek" or "pick and choose" facts for judicial scrutiny, the court is fully empowered to refuse to enter upon the merits, leaving the suitor stranded at the threshold of equity. 7.1 remedies on account of material suppression was authoritatively discussed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ltd. & Ors. [(2008) 12 SCC 481] Ltd. & Ors. [(2008) 12 SCC 481] Ltd. & Ors. [(2008) 12 SCC 481] Ltd. & Ors. [(2008) 12 SCC 481] remedy is not a matter of course and while exercising extraordinary power, a court must bear in mind the conduct of the party invoking its jurisdiction. If an applicant mislead the Bench, the court may dismiss the action on that ground alone and refuse to enter into the merits. The relevant part of is reproduced herein: 47220 47220 47220 47220----2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M) owes a solemn duty of unreserved candor to the Court; failure whereof strikes at the very root of the adjudicatory process. The timeless maxim suppressio veri, suggestio falsi, i.e. the suppression of to the suggestion of a falsehood, applies with uncompromising force. Where a litigant attempts to play "hide and seek" or "pick and choose" facts for judicial scrutiny, the court is fully empowered to refuse to enter upon the , leaving the suitor stranded at the threshold of equity. The principle governing the summary rejection of discretionary remedies on account of material suppression was authoritatively discussed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.D. Sharma v. Steel Aut K.D. Sharma v. Steel Aut K.D. Sharma v. Steel Aut K.D. Sharma v. Steel Aut Ltd. & Ors. [(2008) 12 SCC 481] Ltd. & Ors. [(2008) 12 SCC 481] Ltd. & Ors. [(2008) 12 SCC 481] Ltd. & Ors. [(2008) 12 SCC 481], wherein it was held that a prerogative remedy is not a matter of course and while exercising extraordinary power, a court must bear in mind the conduct of the party invoking its jurisdiction. If an applicant makes a false statement or suppresses material facts to mislead the Bench, the court may dismiss the action on that ground alone and refuse to enter into the merits. The relevant part of is reproduced herein: “26. A prerogative remedy is not a matter of course. While exercising extraordinary power a Writ Court would certainly bear in mind the conduct of the party who invokes the jurisdiction of the Court. If the applicant makes a false statement or suppresses material fact or attempts to mislead the Court, the Court may dismiss the action on that ground alone and may refuse to enter into the merits of the case by stating "We will not listen to your application because of what you have done". The rule has been evolved in larger public in litigants from abusing the process of Court by deceiving it. xxx xxx 28.The above principles have been accepted in our legal system also. As per settled law, the party who invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 or of a High Court under Article 226 of the 7777 owes a solemn duty of unreserved candor to the Court; failure whereof strikes at the very root of the adjudicatory process. The timeless maxim , i.e. the suppression of the truth is equivalent to the suggestion of a falsehood, applies with uncompromising force. Where a litigant attempts to play "hide and seek" or "pick and choose" facts for judicial scrutiny, the court is fully empowered to refuse to enter upon the , leaving the suitor stranded at the threshold of equity. The principle governing the summary rejection of discretionary remedies on account of material suppression was authoritatively discussed K.D. Sharma v. Steel Aut K.D. Sharma v. Steel Aut K.D. Sharma v. Steel Aut K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India hority of India hority of India hority of India , wherein it was held that a prerogative remedy is not a matter of course and while exercising extraordinary power, a court must bear in mind the conduct of the party invoking its jurisdiction. makes a false statement or suppresses material facts to mislead the Bench, the court may dismiss the action on that ground alone and refuse to enter into the merits. The relevant part of K.D. Sharma K.D. Sharma K.D. Sharma K.D. Sharma (supra) is not a matter of course. While exercising extraordinary power a Writ Court would certainly bear in mind the conduct of the party who invokes the jurisdiction of the Court. If the applicant makes a false statement or suppresses material fact or attempts to mislead the Court, the Court may dismiss the action on that ground alone and may refuse to enter into the merits of the case by stating "We will not listen to your application because of what you have done". The rule has been evolved in larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of Court by deceiving it. xxx xxx 28.The above principles have been accepted in our legal system also. As per settled law, the party who invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 or of a High Court under Article 226 of the owes a solemn duty of unreserved candor to the Court; failure whereof strikes at the very root of the adjudicatory process. The timeless maxim the truth is equivalent to the suggestion of a falsehood, applies with uncompromising force. Where a litigant attempts to play "hide and seek" or "pick and choose" facts for judicial scrutiny, the court is fully empowered to refuse to enter upon the The principle governing the summary rejection of discretionary remedies on account of material suppression was authoritatively discussed hority of India hority of India hority of India hority of India , wherein it was held that a prerogative remedy is not a matter of course and while exercising extraordinary power, a court must bear in mind the conduct of the party invoking its jurisdiction. makes a false statement or suppresses material facts to mislead the Bench, the court may dismiss the action on that ground alone (supra) is not a matter of course. While exercising extraordinary power a Writ Court would certainly bear in mind the conduct of the party who invokes the jurisdiction of the Court. If the applicant makes a false statement or suppresses material fact or attempts to mislead the Court, the Court may dismiss the action on that ground alone and may refuse to enter into the merits of the case by stating "We will not listen to your application because of what you have done". The terest to deter unscrupulous 28.The above principles have been accepted in our legal system also. As per settled law, the party who invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 or of a High Court under Article 226 of the MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.07 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----47220 47220 47220 47220 of writ jurisdiction under Article 226/32 of applies with equal rigor to 7.2 involvements procedural formality; it co factor; while adjudicating a plea for bail. criminal antecedents/previous criminal involvements factor for assessing an applicant’s propensity to evidence, or influence witnesses. The indispensable nature of antecedents/previous criminal involvements, exercise of judicial discretion in a petition for bail, has been repeatedly underscored in Singh @ Lalla Babu & Anr. [(2012) 9 SCC 446] Singh @ Lalla Babu & Anr. [(2012) 9 SCC 446] Singh @ Lalla Babu & Anr. [(2012) 9 SCC 446] Singh @ Lalla Babu & Anr. [(2012) 9 SCC 446] Court clarified that while a history absolute rule, constitute a vital factor that cannot be ignored when evaluating societal impact and the gravity of the crime. The relevant part of (supra) read thus: 47220 47220 47220 47220----2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M) Constitution is supposed to be truthful all material facts without any reservation even if they are against him. He cannot be allowed to play 'hide and seek' or to 'pick and choose' the facts he likes to disclose and to suppress (keep back) or not to disclose (conceal) other facts. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true and complete (correct) facts. If material facts are suppressed or distorted, the very functioning of Writ Courts and exercise would become impossible. The petitioner having a bearing on the relief sought without any qualification. This is because, "the Court knows law but not facts.” Albeit, the dicta in KD Sharma KD Sharma KD Sharma KD Sharma of writ jurisdiction under Article 226/32 of applies with equal rigor to anticipatory bail proceedings also. Pertinently, criminal antecedents/previous criminal involvements of a bail applicant/petitioner procedural formality; it constitutes one of the major factors, if not the only while adjudicating a plea for bail. criminal antecedents/previous criminal involvements factor for assessing an applicant’s propensity to evidence, or influence witnesses. The indispensable nature of antecedents/previous criminal involvements, exercise of judicial discretion in a petition for bail, has been repeatedly underscored in catena of binding precedents. In Singh @ Lalla Babu & Anr. [(2012) 9 SCC 446] Singh @ Lalla Babu & Anr. [(2012) 9 SCC 446] Singh @ Lalla Babu & Anr. [(2012) 9 SCC 446] Singh @ Lalla Babu & Anr. [(2012) 9 SCC 446] Court clarified that while a history-sheeter is not disentitled to bail as an absolute rule, criminal antecedents/previous criminal constitute a vital factor that cannot be ignored when evaluating societal impact and the gravity of the crime. The relevant part of (supra) read thus: 8888 Constitution is supposed to be truthful, frank and open. He must disclose all material facts without any reservation even if they are against him. He cannot be allowed to play 'hide and seek' or to 'pick and choose' the facts he likes to disclose and to suppress (keep back) or not to disclose conceal) other facts. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true and complete (correct) facts. If material facts are suppressed or distorted, the very functioning of Writ Courts and exercise would become impossible. The petitioner must disclose all the facts having a bearing on the relief sought without any qualification. This is because, "the Court knows law but not facts.” KD Sharma KD Sharma KD Sharma KD Sharma (supra) arose within the realm of writ jurisdiction under Article 226/32 of the Constitution, the ratio ail proceedings also. criminal antecedents/previous criminal of a bail applicant/petitioner are not collateral details or mere nstitutes one of the major factors, if not the only while adjudicating a plea for bail. While considering bail petition(s) criminal antecedents/previous criminal involvements serve as an imperative factor for assessing an applicant’s propensity to reoffend, tamper with evidence, or influence witnesses. The indispensable nature of criminal antecedents/previous criminal involvements, as a primary factor in the exercise of judicial discretion in a petition for bail, has been repeatedly catena of binding precedents. In Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh @ Lalla Babu & Anr. [(2012) 9 SCC 446] Singh @ Lalla Babu & Anr. [(2012) 9 SCC 446] Singh @ Lalla Babu & Anr. [(2012) 9 SCC 446] Singh @ Lalla Babu & Anr. [(2012) 9 SCC 446], the Hon’ble Supreme sheeter is not disentitled to bail as an criminal antecedents/previous criminal involvements constitute a vital factor that cannot be ignored when evaluating societal impact and the gravity of the crime. The relevant part of Ash Mohammad Ash Mohammad Ash Mohammad Ash Mohammad , frank and open. He must disclose all material facts without any reservation even if they are against him. He cannot be allowed to play 'hide and seek' or to 'pick and choose' the facts he likes to disclose and to suppress (keep back) or not to disclose conceal) other facts. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true and complete (correct) facts. If material facts are suppressed or distorted, the very functioning of Writ Courts and exercise must disclose all the facts having a bearing on the relief sought without any qualification. This is (supra) arose within the realm the Constitution, the ratio criminal antecedents/previous criminal or mere nstitutes one of the major factors, if not the only bail petition(s), serve as an imperative reoffend, tamper with criminal as a primary factor in the exercise of judicial discretion in a petition for bail, has been repeatedly Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj , the Hon’ble Supreme sheeter is not disentitled to bail as an involvements constitute a vital factor that cannot be ignored when evaluating societal Ash Mohammad Ash Mohammad Ash Mohammad Ash Mohammad MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.07 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----47220 47220 47220 47220 7.3 [(2016) 15 SCC 422] [(2016) 15 SCC 422] [(2016) 15 SCC 422] [(2016) 15 SCC 422] specifically because the High Court had completely ignored the heinous criminal record exercise of discretion whimsical, arbitrary, and of Neeru Yadav Neeru Yadav Neeru Yadav Neeru Yadav 7.4 Court in drawing upon the seminal observations of Krishna Iyer, J. in Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor [(1978) 1 SCC 240] Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor [(1978) 1 SCC 240] Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor [(1978) 1 SCC 240] Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor [(1978) 1 SCC 240] 47220 47220 47220 47220----2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M) “30. Xxx xxx The role of the accused is clearly stated. It is apt to note that a history-sheeter has a recorded past. The High Court, in toto, has ignored the criminal antecedents of the accused. What has weighed with the High Court is that the accused had spent seven months in custody. That may be one of the factors but that canno the sole factor in every case. It depends upon the nature of the offence, the manner in which it is committed and its impact on the society. We may hasten to add that when we state that the accused is a history may not be understood to have said that a history to bail. But, it is a significant factor to be taken note of regard being had to the nature of crime in respect of which he has been booked. xxx xxx Furthermore, in Neeru Yadav v. Neeru Yadav v. Neeru Yadav v. Neeru Yadav v. [(2016) 15 SCC 422] [(2016) 15 SCC 422] [(2016) 15 SCC 422] [(2016) 15 SCC 422], the Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside a grant of bail specifically because the High Court had completely ignored the heinous criminal record of the accused, holding that ignoring antecedents renders the cise of discretion whimsical, arbitrary, and Neeru Yadav Neeru Yadav Neeru Yadav Neeru Yadav (supra) read thus: “15. This being the position of law, it is clear as cloudless sky that the High Court has totally ignored the criminal antecedents of the accused. What has weighed with the High Court is the doctrine of parity. A history- sheeter involved in the nature of crimes which we have reproduced hereinabove, are not minor offences so that he is not to be retained in custody, but the crimes are of heinous nat by no stretch of imagination, can be regarded as jejune. Such cases do create a thunder and lightening having the effect potentiality of torrential rain in an analytical mind. The law expects the judiciary to be alert while admitting these kind of accused persons to be at large and, therefore, the emphasis is on exercise of discretion judiciously and not in a whimsical manner.” Furthermore, a three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar & Anr. [(20 Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar & Anr. [(20 Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar & Anr. [(20 Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar & Anr. [(20 drawing upon the seminal observations of Krishna Iyer, J. in Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor [(1978) 1 SCC 240] Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor [(1978) 1 SCC 240] Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor [(1978) 1 SCC 240] Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor [(1978) 1 SCC 240] 9999 The role of the accused is clearly stated. It is apt to sheeter has a recorded past. The High Court, in toto, has ignored the criminal antecedents of the accused. What has weighed with the High Court is that the accused had spent seven months in custody. That may be one of the factors but that cannot be the whole and the sole factor in every case. It depends upon the nature of the offence, the manner in which it is committed and its impact on the society. We may hasten to add that when we state that the accused is a history-sheeter we rstood to have said that a history-sheeter is never entitled to bail. But, it is a significant factor to be taken note of regard being had to the nature of crime in respect of which he has been booked. xxx” Neeru Yadav v. Neeru Yadav v. Neeru Yadav v. Neeru Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. , the Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside a grant of bail specifically because the High Court had completely ignored the heinous , holding that ignoring antecedents renders the cise of discretion whimsical, arbitrary, and “deviant.” The relevant part “15. This being the position of law, it is clear as cloudless sky that the High Court has totally ignored the criminal antecedents of the accused. What has weighed with the High Court is the doctrine of parity. A sheeter involved in the nature of crimes which we have reproduced hereinabove, are not minor offences so that he is not to be retained in custody, but the crimes are of heinous nature and such crimes, by no stretch of imagination, can be regarded as jejune. Such cases do create a thunder and lightening having the effect potentiality of torrential rain in an analytical mind. The law expects the judiciary to be alert while hese kind of accused persons to be at large and, therefore, the emphasis is on exercise of discretion judiciously and not in a whimsical Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar & Anr. [(20 Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar & Anr. [(20 Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar & Anr. [(20 Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar & Anr. [(2022) 4 SCC 497] 22) 4 SCC 497] 22) 4 SCC 497] 22) 4 SCC 497] drawing upon the seminal observations of Krishna Iyer, J. in Gudikanti Gudikanti Gudikanti Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor [(1978) 1 SCC 240] Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor [(1978) 1 SCC 240] Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor [(1978) 1 SCC 240] Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor [(1978) 1 SCC 240], reaffirmed that while The role of the accused is clearly stated. It is apt to sheeter has a recorded past. The High Court, in toto, has ignored the criminal antecedents of the accused. What has weighed with the High Court is that the accused had spent seven months in t be the whole and the sole factor in every case. It depends upon the nature of the offence, the manner in which it is committed and its impact on the society. We may sheeter we sheeter is never entitled to bail. But, it is a significant factor to be taken note of regard being had State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. , the Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside a grant of bail specifically because the High Court had completely ignored the heinous , holding that ignoring antecedents renders the The relevant part “15. This being the position of law, it is clear as cloudless sky that the High Court has totally ignored the criminal antecedents of the accused. What has weighed with the High Court is the doctrine of parity. A sheeter involved in the nature of crimes which we have reproduced hereinabove, are not minor offences so that he is not to be ure and such crimes, by no stretch of imagination, can be regarded as jejune. Such cases do create a thunder and lightening having the effect potentiality of torrential rain in an analytical mind. The law expects the judiciary to be alert while hese kind of accused persons to be at large and, therefore, the emphasis is on exercise of discretion judiciously and not in a whimsical Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme 22) 4 SCC 497] 22) 4 SCC 497] 22) 4 SCC 497] 22) 4 SCC 497], Gudikanti Gudikanti Gudikanti Gudikanti , reaffirmed that while MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.07 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----47220 47220 47220 47220 personal liberty under Article 21 is invaluable, bail discretion must rationally inquire into exploiting judicial leniency to inflict further crimes on society. The relevant part of Brijmani Devi Brijmani Devi Brijmani Devi Brijmani Devi 8. time and again directed for mandatory disclosure of previous criminal involvements Munnesh v. State of Uttar Pradesh Munnesh v. State of Uttar Pradesh Munnesh v. State of Uttar Pradesh Munnesh v. State of Uttar Pradesh 03.04.2025], the Hon’ble Supreme Court took stern note of a growing trend 47220 47220 47220 47220----2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M) personal liberty under Article 21 is invaluable, bail discretion must rationally inquire into antecedents to prevent habitual offenders from exploiting judicial leniency to inflict further crimes on society. The relevant Brijmani Devi Brijmani Devi Brijmani Devi Brijmani Devi (supra) reads thus: “21. Before proceeding further, it would be useful to refer to the judgments of this Court in the matter of granting bail to an accused as under: a) In Gudikanti Narasimhulu (supra), Krishna Iyer, J., while elaborating on the content and meaning of Article of India, has also elaborated the factors that have to be considered while granting bail which are extracted as under: “7. It is thus obvious that the nature of the charge is the vital factor and the nature of the evidence also is pertinent. The punishment to which the party may be liable, if convicted or conviction is confirmed, also bears upon the issue. 8. Another relevant factor is as to whether the course of justice would be thwarted by him who seeks the benignant jurisdiction of the Court to be freed for the 9. Thus the legal principles and practice validate the Court considering the likelihood of the applicant interfering with witnesses for the prosecution or otherwise polluting the process of justice. It is not only traditional but rational, in enquire into the antecedents of a man who is applying for bail to find whether he has a bad record suggests that he is likely to commit serious offences while on bail. In regard to habituals, it is part of cr thoughtless bail order has enabled the bailee to exploit the opportunity to inflict further about the criminal record of a defendant, is therefore not an exercise in irrelevance. xxx xxx Relying upon these principles, Hon’ble Supreme Court has time and again directed for mandatory disclosure of previous criminal involvements across all stages of bail adjudication. In Munnesh v. State of Uttar Pradesh Munnesh v. State of Uttar Pradesh Munnesh v. State of Uttar Pradesh Munnesh v. State of Uttar Pradesh [SLP (Crl.) No. 1 03.04.2025], the Hon’ble Supreme Court took stern note of a growing trend 10 10 10 10 personal liberty under Article 21 is invaluable, bail discretion must antecedents to prevent habitual offenders from exploiting judicial leniency to inflict further crimes on society. The relevant Before proceeding further, it would be useful to refer to the Court in the matter of granting bail to an accused as Narasimhulu (supra), Krishna Iyer, J., while elaborating on the content and meaning of Article 21 of the Constitution has also elaborated the factors that have to be considered while granting bail which are extracted as under: 7. It is thus obvious that the nature of the charge is the vital factor and the nature of the evidence also is pertinent. The punishment to h the party may be liable, if convicted or conviction is confirmed, also bears upon the issue. 8. Another relevant factor is as to whether the course of justice would be thwarted by him who seeks the benignant jurisdiction of the Court to be freed for the time being. 9. Thus the legal principles and practice validate the Court considering the likelihood of the applicant interfering with witnesses for the prosecution or otherwise polluting the process of justice. It is not only traditional but rational, in this context, to enquire into the antecedents of a man who is applying for bail to find whether he has a bad record - particularly a record which suggests that he is likely to commit serious offences while on bail. In regard to habituals, it is part of criminological history that a thoughtless bail order has enabled the bailee to exploit the opportunity to inflict further about the criminal record of a defendant, is therefore not an exercise in irrelevance. xxx xxx” Relying upon these principles, Hon’ble Supreme Court has time and again directed for mandatory disclosure of criminal antecedents/ across all stages of bail adjudication. In [SLP (Crl.) No. 1400/2025, Order dated 03.04.2025], the Hon’ble Supreme Court took stern note of a growing trend personal liberty under Article 21 is invaluable, bail discretion must antecedents to prevent habitual offenders from exploiting judicial leniency to inflict further crimes on society. The relevant Before proceeding further, it would be useful to refer to the Court in the matter of granting bail to an accused as Narasimhulu (supra), Krishna Iyer, J., while of the Constitution has also elaborated the factors that have to be considered while 7. It is thus obvious that the nature of the charge is the vital factor and the nature of the evidence also is pertinent. The punishment to h the party may be liable, if convicted or conviction is 8. Another relevant factor is as to whether the course of justice would be thwarted by him who seeks the benignant jurisdiction of 9. Thus the legal principles and practice validate the Court considering the likelihood of the applicant interfering with witnesses for the prosecution or otherwise polluting the process of this context, to enquire into the antecedents of a man who is applying for bail to particularly a record which suggests that he is likely to commit serious offences while on bail. iminological history that a thoughtless bail order has enabled the bailee to exploit the opportunity to inflict further about the criminal record of a Relying upon these principles, Hon’ble Supreme Court has criminal antecedents/ across all stages of bail adjudication. In 400/2025, Order dated 03.04.2025], the Hon’ble Supreme Court took stern note of a growing trend MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.07 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----47220 47220 47220 47220 where individuals seeking bail or protection from arrest omitted their involvement in other criminal cases, effectively taking the court The Apex Co must mandatorily disclose in the Synopsis possess clean antecedents cases, declaring that any incorrect disclosure independent ground for dismissal. The relevant part of as follows: 47220 47220 47220 47220----2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M) where individuals seeking bail or protection from arrest omitted their involvement in other criminal cases, effectively taking the court The Apex Court categorically directed that every individual approaching it must mandatorily disclose in the Synopsis possess clean antecedents and in case they do not cases, declaring that any incorrect disclosure independent ground for dismissal. The relevant part of as follows: “11. However, before parting, we consider it necessary to dwell on one aspect. A growing trend is being noticed of individuals, seeking from 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 i 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 i 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 t 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/sess 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 c ground for dismissal of the special leave petition.” 11 11 11 11 where individuals seeking bail or protection from arrest omitted their involvement in other criminal cases, effectively taking the court for a ride urt categorically directed that every individual approaching it must mandatorily disclose in the Synopsis of their petition whether they and in case they do not, specify their pending cases, declaring that any incorrect disclosure would itself constitute an independent ground for dismissal. The relevant part of Munnesh Munnesh Munnesh Munnesh (supra) is “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 i being provided in the counter affidavits filed by the respective 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 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.” where individuals seeking bail or protection from arrest omitted their for a ride. urt categorically directed that every individual approaching it whether they specify their pending would itself constitute an (supra) is “11. However, before parting, we consider it necessary to dwell on one 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 ncarceration 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 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 time that such state of 12. We, accordingly, direct that henceforth each individual who approaches this Court with a Special Leave Petition (Criminal) ions 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 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 onsidered as a MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.07 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----47220 47220 47220 47220 8.1 in Firoj @ Farhu v. State of Rajasthan Firoj @ Farhu v. State of Rajasthan Firoj @ Farhu v. State of Rajasthan Firoj @ Farhu v. State of Rajasthan dismissed a bail petition without delving into the m petitioner had asserted a clean record despite having multiple pending cases subsequently exposed by the counter The relevant part of 8.2 Uttar Pradesh & Ors. [2026 AIR SC 1006] Uttar Pradesh & Ors. [2026 AIR SC 1006] Uttar Pradesh & Ors. [2026 AIR SC 1006] Uttar Pradesh & Ors. [2026 AIR SC 1006] Court emphasized that applicants are under a solemn obligation to make a candid disclosure and coercive processes such as non non-disclosure strikes at the very root of criminal justice administration. The relevant part of 47220 47220 47220 47220----2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M) Pertinently, reaffirming this stance, the Hon’ble Supreme Court Firoj @ Farhu v. State of Rajasthan Firoj @ Farhu v. State of Rajasthan Firoj @ Farhu v. State of Rajasthan Firoj @ Farhu v. State of Rajasthan dismissed a bail petition without delving into the m petitioner had asserted a clean record despite having multiple pending cases subsequently exposed by the counter-affidavit filed by the State/prosecution. The relevant part of Firoj @ Farhu Firoj @ Farhu Firoj @ Farhu Firoj @ Farhu (supra) reads thus: “2. Failure to disclose past antecedents or withholding of information about the criminal cases pending against the petitioner/accused is a ground, in itself, to reject the prayer for grant of bail, as withholding of such relevant information would amount to abuse of proce This position was further fortified in Uttar Pradesh & Ors. [2026 AIR SC 1006] Uttar Pradesh & Ors. [2026 AIR SC 1006] Uttar Pradesh & Ors. [2026 AIR SC 1006] Uttar Pradesh & Ors. [2026 AIR SC 1006] Court emphasized that applicants are under a solemn obligation to make a candid disclosure, inter alia, of criminal and coercive processes such as non-bailable warrants or proclamations, as disclosure strikes at the very root of criminal justice administration. The relevant part of Zeba Khan Zeba Khan Zeba Khan Zeba Khan (supra) reads thus: “42. It has been consistently emphasised by this Court that an accused or applicant seeking bail is under a solemn obligation to make a fair, complete and candid disclosure of all material facts having a direct bearing on the exercise of judicial discretion. Any suppressio concealment or selective disclosure of such material facts amounts to an abuse of the process of law and strikes at the very root of the administration of criminal justice. 47. As repeatedly observed by this Court, bail applications are examined at multiple stages - from the trial Court to the High Court and ultimately this Court - where courts are often constrained to take a prima facie view on incomplete or selectively presented records. Non aspects such as criminal antecedents, custody, compliance with constitutional and statutory safeguards, and the progress of trial may result in the unwarranted grant of bail, or 12 12 12 12 Pertinently, reaffirming this stance, the Hon’ble Supreme Court Firoj @ Farhu v. State of Rajasthan Firoj @ Farhu v. State of Rajasthan Firoj @ Farhu v. State of Rajasthan Firoj @ Farhu v. State of Rajasthan, , , , 2025 Law Finder (SC) 6689 2025 Law Finder (SC) 6689 2025 Law Finder (SC) 6689 2025 Law Finder (SC) 6689 dismissed a bail petition without delving into the merits, strictly because the petitioner had asserted a clean record despite having multiple pending cases affidavit filed by the State/prosecution. (supra) reads thus: sclose past antecedents or withholding of information about the criminal cases pending against the petitioner/accused is a ground, in itself, to reject the prayer for grant of bail, as withholding of such relevant information would amount to abuse of process.” This position was further fortified in Zeba Khan v. State of Zeba Khan v. State of Zeba Khan v. State of Zeba Khan v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. [2026 AIR SC 1006] Uttar Pradesh & Ors. [2026 AIR SC 1006] Uttar Pradesh & Ors. [2026 AIR SC 1006] Uttar Pradesh & Ors. [2026 AIR SC 1006], wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasized that applicants are under a solemn obligation to make a antecedents, prior bail rejections, bailable warrants or proclamations, as disclosure strikes at the very root of criminal justice administration. The (supra) reads thus: consistently emphasised by this Court that an accused or applicant seeking bail is under a solemn obligation to make a fair, complete and candid disclosure of all material facts having a direct bearing on the exercise of judicial discretion. Any suppressio concealment or selective disclosure of such material facts amounts to an abuse of the process of law and strikes at the very root of the administration of criminal justice. 47. As repeatedly observed by this Court, bail applications are examined from the trial Court to the High Court and ultimately where courts are often constrained to take a prima facie view on incomplete or selectively presented records. Non-disclosure of material aspects such as criminal antecedents, prior bail rejections, duration of custody, compliance with constitutional and statutory safeguards, and the progress of trial may result in the unwarranted grant of bail, or Pertinently, reaffirming this stance, the Hon’ble Supreme Court 2025 Law Finder (SC) 6689 2025 Law Finder (SC) 6689 2025 Law Finder (SC) 6689 2025 Law Finder (SC) 6689, erits, strictly because the petitioner had asserted a clean record despite having multiple pending cases affidavit filed by the State/prosecution. sclose past antecedents or withholding of information about the criminal cases pending against the petitioner/accused is a ground, in itself, to reject the prayer for grant of bail, as withholding of Zeba Khan v. State of Zeba Khan v. State of Zeba Khan v. State of Zeba Khan v. State of , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasized that applicants are under a solemn obligation to make a antecedents, prior bail rejections, bailable warrants or proclamations, as disclosure strikes at the very root of criminal justice administration. The consistently emphasised by this Court that an accused or applicant seeking bail is under a solemn obligation to make a fair, complete and candid disclosure of all material facts having a direct bearing on the exercise of judicial discretion. Any suppression, concealment or selective disclosure of such material facts amounts to an abuse of the process of law and strikes at the very root of the 47. As repeatedly observed by this Court, bail applications are examined from the trial Court to the High Court and ultimately where courts are often constrained to take a prima facie view disclosure of material prior bail rejections, duration of custody, compliance with constitutional and statutory safeguards, and the progress of trial may result in the unwarranted grant of bail, or MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.07 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----47220 47220 47220 47220 9. Court Rules and Orders of the Punjab and Haryana High Court explicitly dictates that in every bail application presented before the High Court, the applicant shall state whether a similar application has been made before the Supreme Court, and shall mandatorily mention whether he or she is or was involved in any other criminal case, along with full particulars and decisions thereof. Rule 5 (supra) rea 10. conceals or misrepresents involvements, cause of justice. By presenting a sanitized his/her past, the bail applicant/petitioner attempts to manufacture a favourable judicial assessment out of an unlawful misrepresentation, attempting to turn the court’s equitable discretion into an instrument of deception justice at its source, by putting up false/misleading statement as to his/her criminal antecedents/ previous criminal involvements standi to be heard on merits, as no a dishonest foundation, and the court must shut its doors 47220 47220 47220 47220----2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M) conversely, the prolonged incarceration of accused persons despite substantial custody having already been undergone.” Moreover, Rule 5 of Chapter 1 Court Rules and Orders of the Punjab and Haryana High Court explicitly dictates that in every bail application presented before the High Court, the applicant shall state whether a similar application has been made before the Supreme Court, and shall mandatorily mention whether he or she is or was involved in any other criminal case, along with full particulars and decisions thereof. Rule 5 (supra) reads thus: “5. Bail applications “5. Bail applications “5. Bail applications “5. Bail applications.-In every application for bail presented to the High Court the petitioner shall state whether similar application has or has not been made to the Supreme Court, and if made shall state the result thereof. The petitioner/applicant shall also mention whether he/she is/was involved in any other criminal case or not. If yes, particulars and decisions thereof. An application which does not contain this information shall be placed before the bench with the necessary information.” Ergo, an application/petition conceals or misrepresents criminal antecedents/ previous criminal involvements, seeks to misdirect the assessment of the court and subvert the cause of justice. By presenting a sanitized his/her past, the bail applicant/petitioner attempts to manufacture a favourable judicial assessment out of an unlawful misrepresentation, attempting to turn the court’s equitable discretion into an instrument of deception. A bail applicant/petitioner who deliberately poisons the stream of justice at its source, by putting up false/misleading statement as to his/her criminal antecedents/ previous criminal involvements to be heard on merits, as no right to discretionary relief can arise from a dishonest foundation, and the court must shut its doors 13 13 13 13 conversely, the prolonged incarceration of accused persons despite ustody having already been undergone.” Moreover, Rule 5 of Chapter 1-A(b), Volume-V of the High Court Rules and Orders of the Punjab and Haryana High Court explicitly dictates that in every bail application presented before the High Court, the applicant shall state whether a similar application has been made before the Supreme Court, and shall mandatorily mention whether he or she is or was involved in any other criminal case, along with full particulars and decisions In every application for bail presented to the High Court the petitioner shall state whether similar application has or has not been made to the Supreme Court, and if made shall state the result cant shall also mention whether he/she is/was involved in any other criminal case or not. If yes, particulars and decisions thereof. An application which does not contain this information shall be placed before the bench with the necessary information.” petition for grant of bail, that deliberately criminal antecedents/ previous criminal seeks to misdirect the assessment of the court and subvert the cause of justice. By presenting a sanitized (or less aggravating) version of his/her past, the bail applicant/petitioner attempts to manufacture a favourable judicial assessment out of an unlawful misrepresentation, attempting to turn the court’s equitable discretion into an instrument of . A bail applicant/petitioner who deliberately poisons the stream of justice at its source, by putting up false/misleading statement as to his/her criminal antecedents/ previous criminal involvements, forfeits the locus right to discretionary relief can arise from a dishonest foundation, and the court must shut its doors in limine. conversely, the prolonged incarceration of accused persons despite V of the High Court Rules and Orders of the Punjab and Haryana High Court explicitly dictates that in every bail application presented before the High Court, the applicant shall state whether a similar application has been made before the Supreme Court, and shall mandatorily mention whether he or she is or was involved in any other criminal case, along with full particulars and decisions In every application for bail presented to the High Court the petitioner shall state whether similar application has or has not been made to the Supreme Court, and if made shall state the result cant shall also mention whether he/she is/was involved in any other criminal case or not. If yes, particulars and decisions thereof. An application which does not contain this information that deliberately criminal antecedents/ previous criminal seeks to misdirect the assessment of the court and subvert the (or less aggravating) version of his/her past, the bail applicant/petitioner attempts to manufacture a favourable judicial assessment out of an unlawful misrepresentation, attempting to turn the court’s equitable discretion into an instrument of . A bail applicant/petitioner who deliberately poisons the stream of justice at its source, by putting up false/misleading statement as to his/her locus right to discretionary relief can arise from MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.07 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----47220 47220 47220 47220 11. correct criminal antecedents/ previous criminal involvements significantly heightened severity to an application/petition for anticipatory bail, when contrasted with regular bail application/petition under Section 439 CrPC (Section 483 BNSS). An incarcerated accused seeking regular bail often faces structural constrai barriers, pairokars. Conversely, an applicant seeking pre thereby possessing direct records. Furthermore, an application/petition for anticipatory bail is personally backed by a sworn affidavit executed directly by the petitioner. A false statement or deliberate omission regarding antecedents/previous criminal involvements petition from mere procedural non Consequently, suppression in anticipatory bail applications cannot be brushed aside as an inadvertent clerical oversight; it represents a deliberate attempt to manip immediate reach of custody. 12. his/her case evaluated on merits; by the prosecution; undermines judicial efficiency and encourages dishonest litigation tactics. If the only consequence of non antecedents/previous criminal involvements inference dishonest litigants withholding or giving misleading/incomplete information 47220 47220 47220 47220----2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M) Pertinently, the consequences of non criminal antecedents/ previous criminal involvements gnificantly heightened severity to an application/petition for anticipatory bail, when contrasted with regular bail application/petition under Section 439 CrPC (Section 483 BNSS). An incarcerated accused seeking regular bail often faces structural constraints in the form o restricted access to documents and reliance on third . Conversely, an applicant seeking pre thereby possessing direct access to legal counsel, case files, and public records. Furthermore, an application/petition for anticipatory bail is personally backed by a sworn affidavit executed directly by the petitioner. A false statement or deliberate omission regarding antecedents/previous criminal involvements petition from mere procedural non Consequently, suppression in anticipatory bail applications cannot be brushed aside as an inadvertent clerical oversight; it represents a deliberate attempt to manipulate judicial proceedings while remaining beyond the immediate reach of custody. Ergo, allowing a litigant who suppresses material facts to have case evaluated on merits; moreso, by the prosecution; undermines judicial efficiency and encourages dishonest litigation tactics. If the only consequence of non antecedents/previous criminal involvements by the court while considering such dishonest litigants (resorting to such practise) withholding or giving misleading/incomplete information 14 14 14 14 Pertinently, the consequences of non-disclosure of completely criminal antecedents/ previous criminal involvements apply with gnificantly heightened severity to an application/petition for anticipatory bail, when contrasted with regular bail application/petition under Section 439 CrPC (Section 483 BNSS). An incarcerated accused seeking regular nts in the form of severe communication restricted access to documents and reliance on third-party . Conversely, an applicant seeking pre-arrest bail is at freedom access to legal counsel, case files, and public records. Furthermore, an application/petition for anticipatory bail is personally backed by a sworn affidavit executed directly by the petitioner. A false statement or deliberate omission regarding criminal antecedents/previous criminal involvements in this context transitions the petition from mere procedural non-disclosure to active perjury. Consequently, suppression in anticipatory bail applications cannot be brushed aside as an inadvertent clerical oversight; it represents a deliberate ulate judicial proceedings while remaining beyond the who suppresses material facts to have moreso, after the suppression is exposed by the prosecution; undermines judicial efficiency and encourages dishonest litigation tactics. If the only consequence of non-disclosure of criminal antecedents/previous criminal involvements is taking of an adverse such bail plea on merits thereof, (resorting to such practise) face no real downside to withholding or giving misleading/incomplete information as they lose disclosure of completely apply with gnificantly heightened severity to an application/petition for anticipatory bail, when contrasted with regular bail application/petition under Section 439 CrPC (Section 483 BNSS). An incarcerated accused seeking regular f severe communication party is at freedom access to legal counsel, case files, and public records. Furthermore, an application/petition for anticipatory bail is personally backed by a sworn affidavit executed directly by the petitioner. A criminal is context transitions the disclosure to active perjury. Consequently, suppression in anticipatory bail applications cannot be brushed aside as an inadvertent clerical oversight; it represents a deliberate ulate judicial proceedings while remaining beyond the who suppresses material facts to have after the suppression is exposed by the prosecution; undermines judicial efficiency and encourages dishonest criminal adverse the side to as they lose MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.07 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----47220 47220 47220 47220 nothing by taking a chance on deceiving sole ground of suppression antecedents/previous criminal involvements sending an unequivocal signal that an absolute prerequisite for equitable relief. 13. statement criminal involvements strikes at the very root of judicial propriety. To permit a litigant to take court of law for a ride, is to invite judicial anarchy. The judicial time is a precious public resource, and its diversion into the redundant channels of pleas is a vexatious abuse of process. pertinent aspect, clandestinely mocks the process of court. omission exposed is to be considered a deliberate, unpardonable subversion of the rule of law eroded if such attempt(s) is not responded with litigant who misuses the process of law or take liberties with the truth should be left in no doubt about the consequences to fol be discouraged not to venture along the same path in the hope or on a misplaced expectation of judicial leniency or indulgence. Exemplary costs, in such a situation are inevitable and necessary, so as to ensure that in litigation, as in premium on the truth. Such misleading plea(s) which are deficient in any reasonability have to be construed as trifling with the Courts and the process of justice. 47220 47220 47220 47220----2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M) nothing by taking a chance on deceiving ground of suppression of material facts, in particular antecedents/previous criminal involvements sending an unequivocal signal that approaching the court with an absolute prerequisite for equitable relief. Pertinently, this growing trend of making false/misleading statements, particularly with regard to criminal involvements, is a malady that must be detested by this Court, a strikes at the very root of judicial propriety. To permit a litigant to take court of law for a ride, is to invite judicial anarchy. The judicial time is a precious public resource, and its diversion into the redundant channels of a vexatious abuse of process. An individual seeking an equitable relief, while concealing pertinent aspect, clandestinely mocks the process of court. omission exposed is to be considered a deliberate, unpardonable subversion of the rule of law. The sanctity of the judicial process eroded if such attempt(s) is not responded with litigant who misuses the process of law or take liberties with the truth be left in no doubt about the consequences to fol discouraged not to venture along the same path in the hope or on a misplaced expectation of judicial leniency or indulgence. Exemplary costs, in such a situation are inevitable and necessary, so as to ensure that in litigation, as in the law which is rather practiced in our Country, there is no premium on the truth. Such misleading plea(s) which are deficient in any reasonability have to be construed as trifling with the Courts and the process of justice. Pertinently, such vexatious an 15 15 15 15 nothing by taking a chance on deceiving the court. Thus, dismissal on the of material facts, in particular criminal antecedents/previous criminal involvements, establishes a crucial deterrent, approaching the court with clean hands an absolute prerequisite for equitable relief. Pertinently, this growing trend of making false/misleading , particularly with regard to criminal antecedents/previous , is a malady that must be detested by this Court, a strikes at the very root of judicial propriety. To permit a litigant to take court of law for a ride, is to invite judicial anarchy. The judicial time is a precious public resource, and its diversion into the redundant channels of misleading An individual seeking an equitable relief, while concealing pertinent aspect, clandestinely mocks the process of court. Ergo, the omission exposed is to be considered a deliberate, unpardonable subversion The sanctity of the judicial process will be seriously eroded if such attempt(s) is not responded with necessary firmness. A litigant who misuses the process of law or take liberties with the truth be left in no doubt about the consequences to follow. Others should discouraged not to venture along the same path in the hope or on a misplaced expectation of judicial leniency or indulgence. Exemplary costs, in such a situation are inevitable and necessary, so as to ensure that in the law which is rather practiced in our Country, there is no premium on the truth. Such misleading plea(s) which are deficient in any reasonability have to be construed as trifling with the Courts and the process Pertinently, such vexatious and virulent attempt(s) by ismissal on the criminal establishes a crucial deterrent, clean hands is Pertinently, this growing trend of making false/misleading criminal antecedents/previous s it strikes at the very root of judicial propriety. To permit a litigant to take court of law for a ride, is to invite judicial anarchy. The judicial time is a precious misleading An individual seeking an equitable relief, while concealing the omission exposed is to be considered a deliberate, unpardonable subversion will be seriously firmness. A litigant who misuses the process of law or take liberties with the truth low. Others should discouraged not to venture along the same path in the hope or on a misplaced expectation of judicial leniency or indulgence. Exemplary costs, in such a situation are inevitable and necessary, so as to ensure that in the law which is rather practiced in our Country, there is no premium on the truth. Such misleading plea(s) which are deficient in any reasonability have to be construed as trifling with the Courts and the process d virulent attempt(s) by MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.07 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----47220 47220 47220 47220 unscrupulous elements, aimed at misusing the process of law and Courts, ought to be detested. Accordingly, costs, which ought to be veritable and real time in nature, Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis (((( 14. clear that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands inasmuch as, following cases: amendment/modification of the petition in hand, the petitioner has now sought to disclose her antecedents though learned counsel for the respondent has still not given any explanation antecedents were not disclosed earlier. as to how the petitioner could describe herself as a first according to the material subsequently placed before the Court application More so, t significance because the original petit the petitioner herself. subsequently be diluted merely by filing an 47220 47220 47220 47220----2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M) unscrupulous elements, aimed at misusing the process of law and Courts, ought to be detested. Accordingly, costs, which ought to be veritable and real time in nature, ought to be imposed upon ((((re: facts of t re: facts of t re: facts of t re: facts of the present case he present case he present case he present case)))) Reverting to the facts of the clear that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands inasmuch as, she has not disclosed her antecedents in the shape of the following cases: S.No. Particulars 1 FIR No.365/2017 NDPS Act P.S. Sidhuwa Bet 2 FIR No.83/2023 NDPS Act P.S. Sadar Jagraon 3 FIR No.64/2017 NDPS Act P.S. Sidhuwa Bet 4 FIR No.07/2025 P.S. City Jagraon By way of the application (CRM amendment/modification of the petition in hand, the petitioner has now sought to disclose her antecedents though learned counsel for the respondent-NCB at the prelimina has still not given any explanation nay plausible explanation as to why said antecedents were not disclosed earlier. There is no explanation forthcoming as to how the petitioner could describe herself as a first ording to the material subsequently placed before the Court application by respondent - NCB, she was involved in other criminal cases. so, the absence of any satisfactory explanation assumes greater significance because the original petition was filed along with an affidavit of the petitioner herself. A statement made on oath before the Court cannot subsequently be diluted merely by filing an 16 16 16 16 unscrupulous elements, aimed at misusing the process of law and Courts, ought to be detested. Accordingly, costs, which ought to be veritable and to be imposed upon such litigant. Reverting to the facts of the petition in hand, it is absolutely clear that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands he has not disclosed her antecedents in the shape of the FIR No.365/2017 NDPS Act P.S. Sidhuwa Bet FIR No.83/2023 NDPS Act P.S. Sadar Jagraon FIR No.64/2017 NDPS Act P.S. Sidhuwa Bet FIR No.07/2025 P.S. City Jagraon By way of the application (CRM-36362-2026), seeking amendment/modification of the petition in hand, the petitioner has now sought to disclose her antecedents though only after raising objection by the NCB at the preliminary stage itself but plausible explanation as to why said There is no explanation forthcoming as to how the petitioner could describe herself as a first-time offender when, ording to the material subsequently placed before the Court by way of an , she was involved in other criminal cases. he absence of any satisfactory explanation assumes greater ion was filed along with an affidavit of A statement made on oath before the Court cannot subsequently be diluted merely by filing an application seeking amendment unscrupulous elements, aimed at misusing the process of law and Courts, ought to be detested. Accordingly, costs, which ought to be veritable and , it is absolutely clear that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands, he has not disclosed her antecedents in the shape of the 2026), seeking amendment/modification of the petition in hand, the petitioner has now raising objection by the ry stage itself but plausible explanation as to why said There is no explanation forthcoming time offender when, by way of an , she was involved in other criminal cases. he absence of any satisfactory explanation assumes greater ion was filed along with an affidavit of A statement made on oath before the Court cannot amendment MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.07 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----47220 47220 47220 47220 after the disclosure does not efface the fact that when the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this Court, a material fact concerning her antecedents ha particularly when accompanied by a the bona fides disentitling the petitioner to therefore, is not one of a mere technical omission disclosure NCB. Even thereafter, no plausible explanation has been furnished petitioner These circumstances, when considere hesitation suppression of the antecedents withholding criminal involvements in the form of pre considers it examination of the merits of the allegations or to record any finding on the evidentiary value of the material collected agency. Ergo, Decision Decision Decision Decision 15. (i) dismissed 47220 47220 47220 47220----2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M) after the prosecution has pointed out disclosure does not efface the fact that when the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this Court, a material fact concerning her antecedents had not been disclosed. particularly when accompanied by an affidav bona fides of the litigant and itself constitutes a serious circumstance disentitling the petitioner to a discretionary relief. therefore, is not one of a mere technical omission closure has been made only after the objection raised by the NCB. Even thereafter, no plausible explanation has been furnished petitioner for the non-disclosure of her antecedents These circumstances, when considered cumulatively, leave hesitation for this Court to hold that there has been material and deliberate suppression of the antecedents of the petitioner in the Ergo, once the petitioner has approached this Court by withholding the material facts (as to her criminal involvements), she has forfeited her entitlement for equitable relief in the form of pre-arrest bail. Consequently, considers it neither necessary nor duty examination of the merits of the allegations or to record any finding on the evidentiary value of the material collected Ergo, the petition in hand ought to be dismissed on this score alon In view of the prevenient ratiocination, it is ordained thus: The petition in hand is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed with costs of ₹50,000/-, which shall be deposited by the petitioner 17 17 17 17 pointed out the omission. The subsequent disclosure does not efface the fact that when the petitioner had initially invoked the jurisdiction of this Court, a material fact concerning her . Suppression of material facts, n affidavit of the petitioner, strikes at of the litigant and itself constitutes a serious circumstance discretionary relief. The present case, therefore, is not one of a mere technical omission and the subsequent made only after the objection raised by the respondent NCB. Even thereafter, no plausible explanation has been furnished by the of her antecedents in the first instance d cumulatively, leave no room for that there has been material and deliberate of the petitioner in the petition in hand. the petitioner has approached this Court by (as to her criminal antecedents/previous has forfeited her entitlement for equitable relief Consequently, in view of the same, this Court nor duty bound to enter into a detailed examination of the merits of the allegations or to record any finding on the evidentiary value of the material collected so far by the investigating ought to be dismissed on this score alon In view of the prevenient ratiocination, it is ordained thus: The petition in hand is devoid of merits and is hereby which shall be deposited by the petitioner the omission. The subsequent initially invoked the jurisdiction of this Court, a material fact concerning her Suppression of material facts, , strikes at of the litigant and itself constitutes a serious circumstance The present case, subsequent respondent- by the in the first instance. no room for that there has been material and deliberate the petitioner has approached this Court by criminal antecedents/previous has forfeited her entitlement for equitable relief , this Court to enter into a detailed examination of the merits of the allegations or to record any finding on the by the investigating ought to be dismissed on this score alone. The petition in hand is devoid of merits and is hereby which shall be deposited by the petitioner MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.07 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----47220 47220 47220 47220 with Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), today. In case such costs are deposited; CJM, remitted to Punjab State Legal Services Authority, costs are not deposited by the petitioner as directed for; the CJM, is directed to intimate the Deputy Commissioner, such costs recovered from the petitioner including Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana, for further remittance thereof to Punjab State Legal Services Authority, Deputy Commissioner, (ii) Ludhiana (iii) shall not have any effect on merits of the case and as also the being influenced with this order. (iv) September 03, Ajay/Mahavir 47220 47220 47220 47220----2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M) with Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), L In case such costs are deposited; CJM, remitted to Punjab State Legal Services Authority, costs are not deposited by the petitioner as directed for; the CJM, is directed to intimate the Deputy Commissioner, such costs recovered from the petitioner including as arrears of land revenue and upon realization thereof, the Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana shall have the same submitted to CJM, , for further remittance thereof to Punjab State Legal Services Authority, Mohali. A compliance report be sent by CJM, Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana, to this Court accordingly. Registry is directed to transmit a copy of this judgment to CJM, as also Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana Any observations made and/or submissions noted hereinabove shall not have any effect on merits of the case and as also the trial Court shall proceed further, in accordance with law, being influenced with this order. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. September 03, 2026 /Mahavir Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: 18 18 18 18 Ludhiana, within four weeks from In case such costs are deposited; CJM, Ludhiana shall have the same remitted to Punjab State Legal Services Authority, Mohali. In case, the said costs are not deposited by the petitioner as directed for; the CJM, Ludhiana is directed to intimate the Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana who shall have such costs recovered from the petitioner by employing all lawful means as arrears of land revenue and upon realization thereof, the all have the same submitted to CJM, , for further remittance thereof to Punjab State Legal Services . A compliance report be sent by CJM, Ludhiana as also , to this Court accordingly. directed to transmit a copy of this judgment to CJM, Ludhiana for requisite compliance. Any observations made and/or submissions noted hereinabove shall not have any effect on merits of the case and the investigating agency further, in accordance with law, without Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (SUMEET GOEL) (SUMEET GOEL) (SUMEET GOEL) (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No , within four weeks from shall have the same . In case, the said Ludhiana who shall have by employing all lawful means as arrears of land revenue and upon realization thereof, the all have the same submitted to CJM, , for further remittance thereof to Punjab State Legal Services as also directed to transmit a copy of this judgment to CJM, for requisite compliance. Any observations made and/or submissions noted hereinabove gating agency without MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.07 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment