Disclosure of Criminal Antecedents made mandatory in all SLP 's challenging rejection of Bail , “Petitioners Are Taking This Court for a Ride”, Condemns Supreme Court
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court of India, Division Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan, dismissed a special leave petition seeking bail on the ground of suppression of criminal antecedents. The Court recorded that the petitioner had failed to disclose prior convictions and pending cases in the special leave petition. It was held that the suppression of material facts disentitled the petitioner to any discretionary relief, and that disclosure in such matters must be treated as mandatory. The Court directed that all future petitions seeking relief under Sections 438 or 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or under Sections 482 or 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita must include a specific disclosure regarding past criminal involvement.
The matter arose from a special leave petition filed under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, challenging the denial of bail by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in an order dated 3 October 2023. The petitioner had been arrested on 26 May 2018 in connection with an FIR registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. During the proceedings, it was noted by the Supreme Court that the trial was ongoing.
The prosecution had initially listed 22 witnesses to establish the charges against the petitioner. However, as per the counter affidavit filed by the State, the number of witnesses was subsequently reduced to 8. The affidavit stated that the examination of the eighth prosecution witness was in progress.
In its affidavit, the State also furnished details of the petitioner’s criminal history, stating that there were eight criminal cases either pending or concluded against the petitioner, including one conviction under Sections 379 and 411 of the IPC. These details were set out specifically in paragraph 15 of the State's affidavit.
The Court noted that the special leave petition did not make any mention of these criminal antecedents. On being questioned, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the omission was due to the pairokar failing to provide full information. The Bench, however, did not accept this explanation and proceeded to examine the matter on the issue of non-disclosure.
The Court expressed concern over a pattern it identified in similar bail matters. It recorded that “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.”
It was observed that when bail pleas are filed without reference to prior criminal cases, notices are often issued under the impression that the petitioner has no antecedents. Only later, when counter affidavits are filed by the State, does the actual criminal history come to light. The Court noted: “The result is that this Court, being the apex court of the country, is being taken for a ride.”
The Court remarked that although it had shown leniency in the past, it could not permit the practice to continue unchecked. It observed that “such state of affairs is not allowed to continue further.”
The Bench referred to its earlier orders dated 13 October 2023 in SLP (Crl.) No. 12876 of 2023 (Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab) and 19 October 2023 in SLP (Crl.) No. 2863 of 2023 (Sheikh Bhola v. State of Bihar), where directions had been issued to ensure proper and correct disclosure of information in bail matters. However, the Court noted that “steps to be initiated for eliciting proper and correct information from the individuals seeking orders of regular bail/pre-arrest bail have not produced the desired results.”
With specific reference to the present case, the Court recorded: “Had the petitioner’s criminal history been disclosed in the special leave petition, we wonder whether notice on it would have at all been issued.” The Bench concluded that the suppression of material facts itself disentitled the petitioner to the relief sought.
The Court also noted that “even otherwise, the trial has progressed reasonably and hence, no case for releasing the petitioner on bail has been set up.” As such, the plea was rejected both on the ground of suppression and on merits.
In addition to dismissing the special leave petition, the Court issued an institutional direction intended to regulate future filings in criminal matters relating to bail. It held as follows:
“Henceforth each individual who approaches this Court with a Special Leave Petition (Criminal) challenging orders passed by the High Courts/Sessions Courts declining prayers under Sections 438/439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or under Sections 482/483, Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita shall mandatorily disclose in the ‘SYNOPSIS’ that either he is a man of clean antecedents or if he has knowledge of his involvement in any criminal case, he shall clearly indicate the same together with the stage that the proceedings, arising out of such case, have reached.”
The Court further recorded that “should the disclosure be found to be incorrect subsequently, that itself could be considered as a ground for dismissal of the special leave petition.”
Anticipating possible inconvenience, the Bench nonetheless clarified that the direction was necessary to ensure that the apex court was not misled. It stated: “We are conscious that complying with this direction could result in inconvenience for some; however... the process of law is not abused.”
Finally, the Court directed the Registry to give effect to the order institutionally. The directive reads: “Registry is directed to bring this order to the notice of all concerned, in such manner as deemed appropriate, for compliance till such time the rules are amended in terms of the orders dated 13th October, 2023 and 19th October, 2023.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Ayush Negi, Advocate-on-Record; Vishakha Upadhyaya, Advocate; Aarushi Gupta, Advocate
For the Respondents: Sarvesh Singh Baghel, Advocate-on-Record
Case Title: Munnesh v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Case Number: SLP (Crl.) No. 1400 of 2025
Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta, Justice Manmohan
[Read/Download order]
