Accused seeking bail must disclose his criminal antecedents in synopsis of SLP: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently directed that all petitioners moving the top court by way of appeal seeking regular or anticipatory bail must disclose their criminal history in the synopsis of a special leave petition (SLP) filed by them [Munnesh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh]..A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan said that the synopsis of the SLP must clearly state whether the accused has clean antecedents or whether he is involved in any criminal case, specifying the details and the current stage of the proceedings of such case.If such disclosure is later found to be incorrect, that would be a ground for dismissal of the petition, the Court added."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 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 considered as a ground for dismissal of the special leave petition," the order said.The Bench passed this direction after expressing concern over the growing trend of individuals concealing their criminal history while seeking bail."A growing trend is being noticed of individuals, seeking from this Court the concession of bail or concession of protection from arrest, not disclosing in the special leave petitions their involvement in other criminal cases," the Court said while explaining the rationale behind issuing such a direction. The Court said that although the it has been lenient in the past, it is now time to put an end to such practices..The directions were passed while hearing bail plea of one Munnesh, who was arrested on May 26, 2018 in connection with a murder case registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). His application for bail was earlier rejected by Allahabad High Court in October 2023. Challenging this decision, Munnesh approached the Supreme Court.However, in the SLP, the petitioner failed to disclose his criminal antecedents, which include involvement in eight criminal cases and a prior conviction under Sections 379 (punishment for theft) and 411 (Dishonestly receiving stolen property) of Indian Penal Code (IPC). This non-disclosure was brought to the Court’s attention through a counter-affidavit filed by the State..The Court noted that in cases where criminal history is not disclosed, notices are often issued based on concerns over prolonged incarceration or seemingly minor offences.Only later does respondent-State reveal the accused's criminal antecedents in counter-affidavits—as in the present case—leading to the Supreme Court being misled, the Bench noted..The Court referred to two previous orders passed by it in October 2023 which called for steps to ensure accurate and complete disclosure by individuals seeking regular or anticipatory bail. However, noting that these measures have not yielded the desired results, the Court noted that the present directions were being issued in the institutional interest.The Court emphasized that even if these directions may cause inconvenience to some, they are intended to ensure the Court is not taken lightly and the legal process is not abused."We are conscious that complying with this direction could result in inconvenience for some; however, having noticed that orders dated 13th October, 2023 and 19th October, 2023 of this Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 12876 of 20233 and SLP (Crl.) No. 2863 of 20234 , respectively, requiring 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, we have proceeded to make the aforesaid direction in the institutional interest so that proceedings before this Court are not taken lightly by those who choose to approach it and the process of law is not abused," the Bench said..In the present case, the Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to the discretionary relief of bail and dismissed the petition..Advocates Ayush Negi, Vishakha Upadhyaya and Aarushi Gupta appeared on behalf of the petitioner while Advocate Sarvesh Singh Baghel appeared for the respondent..[Read Order]