AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G. Satapathy, J.
This is a bail application U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Khetrajpur PS Case No. 93 of 2025 corresponding to S.T. Case No. 258/69 of 2025 pending in the file of learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, for commission of offences punishable U/Ss. 331(3)/305(a)/61(2)/111(2)/3(5) of BNS read with Sec. 25(1A)/27 of Arms Act.
Heard, Ms.Subhasmita Pattanaik, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.B.Mishra, learned Addl. PP in the matter and perused the record.
Mr. R.B.Mishra, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application of the petitioner for suppressing his criminal antecedents, but Ms.Subhasmita Pattanaik, learned counsel for the petitioner answers to such objection by submitting inter-alia that the petitioner has disclosed his criminal antecedents in Pararagrpah-1 of the bail application, however, on perusal of Paragraph-1 of the bail application, it is found that the petitioner has averred the following:-
“the petitioner has 15 criminal antecedents as shown by the investigating officer and out of them in most of the case the petitioner got acquittal and also granted bail.”
The aforesaid disclosure is not in terms of the law and rules of the High Court. A petitioner applying for bail has to mandatorily disclose the details of his criminal antecedents. In this regard this Court is fortified with the decision in Zeba Khan Vrs. State of UP and others; 2026 SCC OnLine 188, wherein the Apex Court at paragraphs-42, 43, 47 & 48 has been pleased to hold as under:-
“42.It has been consistently emphasized 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 administration of criminal justice.
43.In the present case, Respondent No. 2 deliberately concealed his criminal antecedents before the High Court, both in the petition for quashing FIR as well as in successive bail applications. Even before this Court, only partial disclosure was made in the counter-affidavit, despite the existence of multiple criminal cases on record. This conduct cannot be viewed as an isolated lapse but reflects a growing and disturbing trend of accused persons securing discretionary relief by suppressing material facts.
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-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 conversely, the prolonged incarceration of accused persons despite substantial custody having already been undergone.
48.Thus, this Court is of the view that every petitioner or applicant seeking bail, at any stage of proceedings, is under an obligation to disclose all material particulars, including criminal antecedents and the existence of any coercive processes such as issuance of non-bailable warrants, declaration as a proclaimed offender, or similar proceedings, duly supported by an affidavit, so as to promote uniformity, transparency and integrity in bail adjudication.”
Additionally, in the context of suppression of material facts, this Court is also fortified with the decision in Munnesh Vrs. State of Uttar Pradesh; 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1319 wherein the Apex Court at paragraph-9 has held thus:-
“9.since the petitioner has suppressed material facts with regard to his involvement in criminal cases, he is not entitled to the discretionary relief of bail.” Xxxx xxx xx xx.”
In view of the above facts, since the petitioner is guilty of suppression of material facts for not disclosing the details of his criminal antecedents, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
Hence, the bail application of the petitioner stands rejected. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of. A copy of this order be immediately transmitted to the learned Court in seisin over the matter.