Kaushalya Rani vs Union Of India Through The Office Of Narcotics Bureau
- Court
- Punjab and Haryana High Court
CRM-M-4 CRM
CRM CRM
47220-2026 (O&M) 47220 2026 (O&M)
47220 47220 2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M)
1
IN IN IN IN
N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ
JAB AND HARYANA AT JAB AND HARYANA AT JAB AND HARYANA AT JAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGA CHANDIGA CHANDIGA CHANDIGA
ARH ARH ARH ARH
107 107 107 107
CRM CRM-36362 CRM CRM 36362 36362-2026 in/& 36362 2026 in/& 2026 in/& 2026 in/&
CRM CRM-M-47220 CRM CRM 47220 47220-2026 47220 2026 2026 (O&M 2026 (O&M (O&M (O&M
M) M) M) M)
Kaushalya
a Rani
....Petitioner
V/s
India thr. the office of Narcotics
Union of
Date of de Date of de Date of de Date of de
s Control Bureau
....Respondent
ecision: ecision: 03.09.2026 ecision: ecision: 03.09.2026 03.09.2026 03.09.2026
Date of U Date of U Date of U Date of U
Uploading : 0 Uploading : 07.09.2026 Uploading : 0 Uploading : 0 .09.2026 .09.2026 .09.2026
CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM:
: : : : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SU HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SU HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SU HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SU
UMEET GOEL UMEET GOEL UMEET GOEL UMEET GOEL
Present:
Mr. Saksham Dudeja, Advoc
cate for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Special Pu
Ms. Indu Bala Sharma, Advo
Mr. Amrit Kashyap, Advocat
ublic Prosecutor (NCB) with
ocate &
te for the respondent –NCB.
*
T GOEL T GOEL T GOEL T GOEL , J. , J. , J. , J.
SUMEET SUMEET SUMEET SUMEET
referred to as ‘ petition in han
nd’ )
1.
Present petition (hereinafter
has been
filed on behalf of the petitioner
r seeking grant of anticipatory/p
pre-
arrest bail
l under Section 482 of Bharatiy
ya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20
023
(hereinaft
ter to be referred as ‘BNSS’) in
n Crime No. 27 dated 23.12.20
25,
registered
d under Sections 8, 21 and
29 of the Narcotic Drugs a
and
Psychotro
opic Substances Act, 1985, wi
th the Narcotics Control Bure
eau,
Chandiga
arh/Sahnewal, Ludhiana.
s, the relevant factual milieu of
2.
Shorn of non-essential detail
the
lis in the p
petition in hand is adumbrated th
hus:
(i)
The genesis of the case lies
in the alleged recovery of 117
.61
grams of
heroin stated to be effected fr
rom co-accused –– Manjeet Ka
aur.
During th
he course of investigation, co-acc
cused –– Manjeet Kaur is stated
d to
have mad
de a disclosure statement im
mplicating the petitioner (herei
MAHAVIR SINGH
in),
2026.09.07 09:45
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment
CRM-M-4 CRM
CRM CRM
47220-2026 (O&M) 47220 2026 (O&M)
47220 47220 2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M)
2
alleging t
that the contraband in question
had been procured from her. T
The
prosecutio
on has also relied upon the cal
ll detail records (CDR) and oth
her
material a
allegedly indicating contact be
etween the petitioner and the c
co-
accused.
(ii)
Upon rejection of her plea fo
for grant of anticipatory bail by
the
learned Sp
pecial Judge, Ludhiana, vide ord
der dated 01.06.2026, the petition
ner
y of the petition in hand .
(herein) h
has approached this Court by way
bing her antecedents in the petiti
tion
(iii)
The petitioner, while describ
in hand , h
has specifically stated as under:
“12. That the petitioner is first
t time offender and there is no other c
case
registered against him under eith
ther the provisions of the NDPS Act
t or
under any other section of Indian
n Penal Code expect the present one.
His
whole life is at stake due to the all
lleged false implication.
As per of Instructions regarding N
NDPS Act
(a) Whether the Petitioner is/was
s accused in any other case(s) registe
ered
against him anywhere in India?
? IN case it is so, update status of
f the
proceedings in the case(s). – No
(b) If the petitioner is on bai
il in any case(s) pending against him
m or
sentence awarded to him in any o
other case(s) has been suspended spec
cific
mention is required to be made3.
– No
(c) Number and title of an
any other pending case(s) against
the
Petitioner in the Court where su
uch a case/petition is moved, should
d be
mentioned – No.
(d) Whether he has ever been dec
clared proclaimed offender in any case
e or
not? - No”
(iv)
At the time of preliminary
y hearing on 24.08.2026, learn
ned
counsel ap
ppearing for the respondent - N
NCB had raised a specific objecti
ion
that the p
petitioner had not disclosed his
complete antecedents inasmuch
h as
she is invo
olved in other FIR(s), whereupon
n the following order was passed
d:
“At this juncture, learned
d Special Public Prosecutor (NCB),
on
instructions, submits that the pet
etitioner (herein) is involved in multi
tiple
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.09.07 09:45
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment
other cases, but he has not disclos
sed them.
CRM-M-4 CRM
CRM CRM
47220-2026 (O&M) 47220 2026 (O&M)
47220 47220 2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M)
3
Respondent – NCB is
directed to file reply; especially q
qua
antecedents of the petitioner.
List on 03.09.2026.
cause list. ”
Be taken up in the urgent c
(v)
The respondent-NCB has m
moved an application (No.CR
M-
d its reply to the petition in han
and .
36815-20
26) seeking to place on record
The said
reply, while delineating the ant
tecedents of the petitioner, refle
ects
thus:
“2. That the petitioner is a ha
abitual offender and number of cases h
had
been already registered against th
he petitioner. The details of the same
e are
as under:
S.No. Particulars
1 FIR No.365/2017 NDPS A
Act P.S. Sidhuwa Bet
2 FIR No.83/2023 NDPS A
Act P.S. Sadar Jagraon
3 FIR No.64/2017 NDPS A
Act P.S. Sidhuwa Bet
4 FIR No.07/2025 P.S. City
y Jagraon
ht to amend the petition in hand
d by
(vi)
The petitioner has now sough
way of m
miscellaneous application bearin
ng No. CRM-36362-2026 where
eby
she has di
isclosed being involved in other
cases/FIR(s).
al milieu of the case in hand,
It is in the aforesaid factua
the
way of the petition in hand .
petitioner
r has approached this Court by w
Rival sub Rival sub Rival sub Rival sub
missions missions missions missions
3.
Learned counsel for the pe
etitioner, while responding to
the
objection
raised by learned counsel for th
he NCB on the preceding date w
with
regard to
non-disclosure of the antecedent
ts of the petitioner, has iterated t
hat
the same
was neither intentional nor with
h any oblique motive. According
g to
learned c
counsel, the petitioner did not
deliberately seek to mislead t
MAHAVIR SINGH this
2026.09.07 09:45
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment
CRM-M-4 CRM
CRM CRM
47220-2026 (O&M) 47220 2026 (O&M)
47220 47220 2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M)
4
Court or
to derive any undue advantage
by withholding any material fa
act.
Immediat
tely upon the objection being rais
sed by the respondent - NCB at
the
prelimina
ary stage, the petitioner has filed
an appropriate application seeki
ing
ent of the petition in hand and ha
amendme
as disclosed the other FIR(s) havi
ing
been regis
stered against the petitioner. It h
has been further contended that
the
rates the bona fide of the petition
subsequen
nt disclosure, by itself, demonstr
ner
and reflec
cts that there was no intention o
n part of the petitioner to suppr
ess
any mater
rial fact from this Court.
3.1
As regard the merits of th
he case, learned counsel for
the
petitioner
r has contended that the petition
ner has been falsely implicated in
nto
the FIR in
n question as she was neither n
nominated in the FIR nor was s
she
present a
at the place of recovery. It has
s been further contended that
no
recovery
whatsoever has been effected
from the petitioner and her na
me
surfaced o
only during the course of inves
stigation on the basis of disclosu
ure
statement
t of the co-accused – Manjeet K
Kaur. According to learned couns
sel,
the allege
ed recovery of 117.61 grams of
heroin has been effected from c
co-
accused –
–– Manjeet Kaur, who has alrea
ady been granted the concession
n of
regular b
ail by the learned Special Co
ourt vide order dated 04.02.20
26.
Learned c
counsel has also contended that
upon completion of investigati
on,
challan ha
as been presented before the com
mpetent Court of jurisdiction. Mo
ore
so, no fur
rther recovery is likely to be effe
ected particularly when the alleg
ged
contraban
nd has already been recovered f
from the co-accused and, thus,
the
s not required in the factual mil
lieu
custodial
interrogation of the petitioner is
of the pet
tition in hand . Moreover, the pet
titioner has no intention of evadi
ing
the proces
ss of law and, thus, no useful pu
urpose would be served by sendi
ing
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.09.07 09:45
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment
her behind
d the bars.
CRM-M-4 CRM
CRM CRM
47220-2026 (O&M) 47220 2026 (O&M)
47220 47220 2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M)
5
On the strength of these sub
bmissions, the grant of anticipato
ory
bail is ent
treated for.
In oppugnation , learned coun
4.
nsel appearing for the responden
nt –
NCB has
opposed the petition in hand by
y arguing that the petitioner has n
not
approache
ed this Court with clean hands. R
Referring to reply filed on behalf
f of
the respon
ndent-NCB, learned counsel ha
s pointed out that the petitioner
r is
ved in 04 other cases which pri
ima
not a first
t time offender as she is involv
facie refle
ect her continued involvement
in criminal activities. On mer
rits,
learned co
ounsel has contended that the al
llegations against the petitioner
are
serious in
n nature and relate to recovery
of commercial quantity of hero
oin
weighing
117.61 grams from co-accus
sed Manjeet Kaur. According
to
learned co
ounsel, name of the petitioner
has surfaced during the course
of
investigat
tion on the basis of the disclosu
ure made by the co-accused. It h
has
been furt
ther contended that the prosec
cution has relied upon the CD
DRs
showing c
contact between the petitioner an
nd the other accused persons wh
ich
require p
proper investigation and cannot
t be brushed aside at this sta
age.
Furthermo
ore, the custodial interrogation
of the petitioner is necessary
to
ascertain
the source of procurement o
of the contraband, identify oth
her
persons in
nvolved in the narcotics networ
rk and unearth the entire chain
of
ons, the dismissal of the petition
n in
supply. O
On the strength of these submissio
hand is pr
rayed for.
5.
I have heard the learned cou
unsel for the rival parties and ha
ave
gone throu
ugh the available record of the c
case.
Prime Issu Prime Issu Prime Issu Prime Issu
ue ue ue ue
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.09.07 09:45
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment
CRM-M-4 CRM
CRM CRM
47220-2026 (O&M) 47220 2026 (O&M)
47220 47220 2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M)
6
6.
The issue that arises for cons
sideration before this Court is as
s to
whether t
the petitioner ought to be grant
ted the concession of anticipato
ory
e factual milieu of the petition in
n hand.
bail in the
The seminal legal question th
hat arises for cogitation is wheth
her
an applica
ation/petition seeking anticipator
ry bail can, and indeed ought to
be,
dismissed
d on the sole ground of de
eliberate suppression of crimi
nal
anteceden
nts/previous criminal involvemen
nts, without adverting to the fact
ual
matrix or
underlying merits of the case?
Analysis ( Analysis ( Analysis ( Analysis (
(re: law) (re: law) (re: law) (re: law)
7.
The jurisdiction to grant an
nticipatory bail under Section 4
482
BNSS (er
rstwhile Section 438 Cr.P.C.) is
an extraordinary discretionary an
nd,
equitable
dispensation. Designed as a bu
uffer against unnecessary/malicio
ous
arrest and
d police highhandedness, pre-a
arrest protection rests entirely
on
judicial d
discretion rather than statuto
ory entitlement. Because a b
bail
applicant/
/petitioner seeking anticipatory
y bail invokes the extraordina
ary
equitable
jurisdiction of the court to seek
k a pre-emptive protection, the p
plea
is bound
to be accompanied by uncom
mpromising candor and compl
lete
e in view of the doctrine of Uber
errima Fides , i.e. the requirement
disclosure
t of
utmost g
ood faith; which is not a m
mere rhetorical ornament, but
the
foundatio
nal pillar upon which extraordi
inary judicial remedies rest. Wh
hile
our crimi
inal justice system purports to
follow the adversarial model
of
adjudicati
ion, it cannot be reduced to a pri
ivate contractual negotiation wh
ere
parties re
etain the prerogative to disc
close or conceal facts at th
heir
convenien
nce. Judicial discretion is not a
a commodity to be bartered up
pon
selective
disclosures, nor is the court a
stage for legal sleight of hand.
. A
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.09.07 09:45
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment
party invo
oking the extraordinary statutor
ry concession of pre-arrest libe
erty
CRM-M-4 CRM
CRM CRM
47220-2026 (O&M) 47220 2026 (O&M)
47220 47220 2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M)
7
owes a s
olemn duty of unreserved cand
dor to the Court; failure where
eof
strikes at
the very root of the adjudicat
tory process. The timeless max
xim
suppressio
io veri, suggestio falsi , i.e. the su
uppression of the truth is equival
ent
to the sug
ggestion of a falsehood, applies w
with uncompromising force. Wh
ere
a litigant
attempts to play "hide and see
ek" or "pick and choose" facts
for
judicial sc
crutiny, the court is fully empo
owered to refuse to enter upon
the
merits, lea
aving the suitor stranded at the th
hreshold of equity.
7.1
The principle governing the s
summary rejection of discretiona
ary
remedies
on account of material suppres
ssion was authoritatively discuss
sed
on’ble Supreme Court in K.D. S K.D. S
K.D. S K.D. S
Sharma v. Steel Authority of In Sharma v. Steel Aut hority of In
Sharma v. Steel Aut Sharma v. Steel Aut hority of In hority of In
ndia ndia
ndia ndia
by the Ho
Ltd. & O Ltd. & O
Ltd. & O Ltd. & O
Ors. [(2008) 12 SCC 481] Ors. [(2008) 12 SCC 481] , wher
Ors. [(2008) 12 SCC 481] Ors. [(2008) 12 SCC 481]
rein it was held that a prerogat
ive
remedy is
s not a matter of course and whi
ile exercising extraordinary pow
wer,
a court m
must bear in mind the conduct of
f the party invoking its jurisdicti
on.
If an app
plicant makes a false statemen
nt or suppresses material facts
to
mislead th
he Bench, the court may dismis
ss the action on that ground alo
one
elevant part of K.D. Sharma K.D. Sharma K.D. Sharma K.D. Sharma (sup
and refuse
e to enter into the merits. The re
pra)
is reprodu
uced herein:
“26. A prerogative remedy is no
ot a matter of course. While exercis
sing
extraordinary power a Writ Co
ourt would certainly bear in mind
the
conduct of the party who invok
kes the jurisdiction of the Court. If
f the
applicant makes a false statement
nt or suppresses material fact or attem
mpts
to mislead the Court, the Court
may dismiss the action on that grou
ound
alone and may refuse to enter int
nto the merits of the case by stating "
"We
will not listen to your application
on because of what you have done". T
The
rule has been evolved in larger
er public interest to deter unscrupul
lous
litigants from abusing the process
s of Court by deceiving it.
xxx xxx
x xxx
28.The above principles have bee
en accepted in our legal system also.
As
per settled law, the party who in
invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction
n of
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.09.07 09:45
f the
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment
this Court under Article 32 or of
f a High Court under Article 226 of
CRM-M-4 CRM
CRM CRM
47220-2026 (O&M) 47220 2026 (O&M)
47220 47220 2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M)
8
Constitution is supposed to be tru
uthful, frank and open. He must discl
lose
all material facts without any rese
ervation even if they are against him.
He
cannot be allowed to play 'hide an
and seek' or to 'pick and choose' the fa
facts
he likes to disclose and to sup
uppress (keep back) or not to discl
lose
(conceal) other facts. The very
y basis of the writ jurisdiction rests
s in
disclosure of true and complete
te (correct) facts. If material facts
are
suppressed or distorted, the very
functioning of Writ Courts and exerc
rcise
would become impossible. The
e petitioner must disclose all the fa
facts
having a bearing on the relief so
ought without any qualification. This
is is
because, "the Court knows law bu
ut not facts.”
Albeit, the dicta in KD Shar KD Shar KD Shar KD Shar
rma rma rma rma (supra) arose within the rea
alm
of writ j
urisdiction under Article 226/3
32 of the Constitution, the ra
atio
applies w
ith equal rigor to anticipatory ba
ail proceedings also.
7.2
Pertinently, criminal
antecedents/previous crimi
inal
involveme
ments of a bail applicant/petitione
er are not collateral details or m
ere
procedura
al formality; it constitutes one o
f the major factors, if not the on
nly
factor; wh
hile adjudicating a plea for bail.
While considering bail petition(
(s),
criminal a
antecedents/previous criminal in
nvolvements serve as an imperat
ive
factor for
r assessing an applicant’s prop
pensity to reoffend, tamper w
with
indispensable nature of crimi
inal
evidence,
or influence witnesses. The
anteceden
nts/previous criminal involveme
ments, as a primary factor in
the
exercise o
of judicial discretion in a petit
tion for bail, has been repeated
dly
nts. In Ash Mohammad v. Shiv R Ash Mohammad v. Shiv R Ash Mohammad v. Shiv R Ash Mohammad v. Shiv R
Raj Raj Raj Raj
underscor
red in catena of binding preceden
Singh @ Singh @ Singh @ Singh @
@ Lalla Babu & Anr. [(2012) 9 @ Lalla Babu & Anr. [(2012) 9 @ Lalla Babu & Anr. [(2012) 9 @ Lalla Babu & Anr. [(2012) 9
9 SCC 446] 9 SCC 446] 9 SCC 446] 9 SCC 446] , the Hon’ble Supre
me
Court cla
arified that while a history-shee
eter is not disentitled to bail as
an
rule, criminal antecedents/p
/previous criminal involveme
ents
absolute
constitute
e a vital factor that cannot be
ignored when evaluating socie
etal
e relevant part of Ash Mohamm Ash Mohamm Ash Mohamm Ash Mohamm
mad mad mad mad
impact an
nd the gravity of the crime. The
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.09.07 09:45
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment
(supra) re
ead thus:
CRM-M-4 CRM
CRM CRM
47220-2026 (O&M) 47220 2026 (O&M)
47220 47220 2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M)
9
“30. Xxx xxx The role of
f the accused is clearly stated. It is ap
pt to
note that a history-sheeter has a
recorded past. The High Court, in to
toto,
has ignored the criminal anteced
dents of the accused. What has weigh
ghed
with the High Court is that th
he accused had spent seven months
s in
custody. That may be one of the
factors but that cannot be the whole
and
the sole factor in every case. It dep
epends upon the nature of the offence,
the
manner in which it is committed
d and its impact on the society. We m
may
hasten to add that when we state
e that the accused is a history-sheeter
r we
may not be understood to have sa
aid that a history-sheeter is never entit
itled
to bail. But, it is a significant fac
ctor to be taken note of regard being h
had
to the nature of crime in respect o
of which he has been booked.
xxx xxx
xxx”
Furthermore, in Neeru Yadav Neeru Yadav Neeru Yada Neeru Yada
av v. av v. State of Uttar Pradesh & A av v. av v. State of Uttar Pradesh & A State of Uttar Pradesh & A State of Uttar Pradesh & A
Anr. Anr. Anr. Anr.
7.3
[(2016) 1 [(2016) 1 [(2016) 1 [(2016) 1
15 SCC 422] 15 SCC 422] 15 SCC 422] 15 SCC 422] , the Hon’ble Supre
eme Court set aside a grant of b
bail
specifical
ly because the High Court had
d completely ignored the heino
ous
criminal r
record of the accused, holding th
hat ignoring antecedents renders
the
exercise o
of discretion whimsical, arbitrary
y, and “deviant.” The relevant p
part
of Neeru Y Neeru Y Neeru Y Neeru Y
Yadav Yadav Yadav Yadav (supra) read thus:
“15. This being the position of l
law, it is clear as cloudless sky that
the
High Court has totally ignored t
the criminal antecedents of the accus
sed.
What has weighed with the Hi
High Court is the doctrine of parity.
y. A
history- sheeter involved in th
the nature of crimes which we h
have
reproduced hereinabove, are not
t minor offences so that he is not to
o be
retained in custody, but the crime
es are of heinous nature and such crim
mes,
by no stretch of imagination, can
an be regarded as jejune. Such cases
s do
create a thunder and lightening h
having the effect potentiality of torren
ntial
rain in an analytical mind. The la
aw expects the judiciary to be alert wh
while
admitting these kind of accused p
persons to be at large and, therefore,
the
emphasis is on exercise of discre
etion judiciously and not in a whims
sical
manner.”
7.4
Furthermore, a three-Judge
Bench of the Hon’ble Supre
me
Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kum Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kum Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kum Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kum
mar & Anr. [(20 mar & Anr. [(2022) 4 SCC 49 mar & Anr. [(20 mar & Anr. [(20 22) 4 SCC 49 22) 4 SCC 49 22) 4 SCC 49
97] 97] 97] 97] ,
Court in
of Krishna Iyer, J. in Gudika Gudika Gudika Gudika
anti anti anti anti
drawing u
upon the seminal observations
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.09.07 09:45
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment
Narasimh Narasimh Narasimh Narasimh
hulu v. Public Prosecutor [(1978) hulu v. Public Prosecutor [(1978) hulu v. Public Prosecutor [(1978) hulu v. Public Prosecutor [(1978)
8) 1 SCC 240] 8) 1 SCC 240] ) 1 SCC 240] ) 1 SCC 240] , reaffirmed that wh
hile
CRM-M-4 CRM
CRM CRM
47220-2026 (O&M) 47220 2026 (O&M)
47220 47220 2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M)
10 10
10 10
personal
liberty under Article 21 is
invaluable, bail discretion m
must
rationally
y inquire into antecedents to
prevent habitual offenders fro
om
exploiting
g judicial leniency to inflict furth
her crimes on society. The relev
ant
part of Br Br Br Br
rijmani Devi rijmani Devi rijmani Devi rijmani Devi (supra) reads thus:
“21. Before proceeding furthe
her, it would be useful to refer to
the
judgments of this Court in the m
matter of granting bail to an accused
d as
under:
a) In Gudikanti Narasimhu
hulu (supra), Krishna Iyer, J., wh
while
elaborating on the content and m
meaning of Article 21 of the Constitut
ution
of India, has also elaborated the
factors that have to be considered wh
while
granting bail which are extracted
as under:
“7. It is thus obvious that t
the nature of the charge is the vital fac
actor
and the nature of the evide
dence also is pertinent. The punishmen
nt to
which the party may be
be liable, if convicted or conviction
n is
confirmed, also bears upon
on the issue.
8. Another relevant facto
or is as to whether the course of just
stice
would be thwarted by him
m who seeks the benignant jurisdiction
n of
the Court to be freed for th
he time being.
9. Thus the legal princ
ciples and practice validate the Co
ourt
considering the likeliho
ood of the applicant interfering w
with
witnesses for the prosecut
tion or otherwise polluting the process
ss of
justice. It is not only trad
aditional but rational, in this context,
t, to
enquire into the anteceden
nts of a man who is applying for bai
il to
find whether he has a ba
bad record - particularly a record wh
hich
suggests that he is likely t
to commit serious offences while on b
bail.
In regard to habituals, it
t is part of criminological history tha
hat a
thoughtless bail order h
has enabled the bailee to exploit
the
opportunity to inflict fu
urther about the criminal record o
of a
defendant, is therefore not
t an exercise in irrelevance.
xxx xxx
x xxx”
8.
Relying upon these princip
ples, Hon’ble Supreme Court h
has
disclosure of criminal anteceden
nts/
time and
again directed for mandatory d
previous
criminal involvements across a
all stages of bail adjudication.
In
Munnesh Munnesh Munnesh Munnesh
h v. State of Uttar Pradesh h v. State of Uttar Pradesh h v. State of Uttar Pradesh h v. State of Uttar Pradesh [SLP
(Crl.) No. 1400/2025, Order da
ted
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.09.07 09:45
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment
03.04.202
25], the Hon’ble Supreme Court
took stern note of a growing tre
end
CRM-M-4 CRM
CRM CRM
47220-2026 (O&M) 47220 2026 (O&M)
47220 47220 2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M)
11 11
11 11
where in
dividuals seeking bail or prot
tection from arrest omitted th
heir
ectively taking the court for a ri
ide .
involveme
ent in other criminal cases, effe
The Apex
x Court categorically directed th
hat every individual approaching
g it
must man
ndatorily disclose in the Synop
psis of their petition whether th
hey
possess c
clean antecedents and in case th
hey do not, specify their pendi
ing
cases, de
claring that any incorrect disc
closure would itself constitute
an
elevant part of Munnesh Munnesh Munnesh Munnesh (supra)
independe
ent ground for dismissal. The re
) is
as follows
s:
“11. However, before parting, w
we consider it necessary to dwell on
one
aspect. A growing trend is being
noticed of individuals, seeking from t
this
Court the concession of bail or c
concession of protection from arrest,
not
disclosing in the special leave
e petitions their involvement in ot
ther
criminal cases. In such cases wh
here involvement is not disclosed, o
on a
prima facie satisfaction that l
long incarceration without reasona
able
progress in the trial is invading th
the right to life of the accused or that
t the
offences for which the FIR has be
een registered are not too serious, noti
tices
are issued and only thereafter,
information of criminal antecedents
ts is
being provided in the counte
er affidavits filed by the respect
ctive
respondents-States, as in the pre
esent case. The result is that this Co
ourt,
being the apex court of the count
ntry, is being taken for a ride. This Co
Court
has shown leniency in the past b
but we think it is time that such state
e of
affairs is not allowed to continue f
further.
12. We, accordingly, direct t
that henceforth each individual w
who
approaches this Court with a
a Special Leave Petition (Crimin
inal)
challenging orders passed by th
he high courts/sessions courts declin
ning
prayers under Sections 438/439 o
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19
1973
or under Sections 482/483, Bh
haratiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita sh
shall
mandatorily disclose in the 'SYN
NOPSIS' that either he is a man of cl
lean
antecedents or if he has knowled
edge of his involvement in any crimi
minal
case, he shall clearly indicate th
he same together with the stage that
the
proceedings, arising out of such c
case, have reached. Should the disclos
sure
be found to be incorrect subseque
ently, that itself could be considered a
as a
ground for dismissal of the specia
al leave petition.”
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.09.07 09:45
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment
CRM-M-4 CRM
CRM CRM
47220-2026 (O&M) 47220 2026 (O&M)
47220 47220 2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M)
12 12
12 12
8.1
Pertinently, reaffirming this s
stance, the Hon’ble Supreme Co
ourt
in Firoj @ Firoj @ Firoj @ Firoj @
@ Farhu v. State of Rajastha @ Farhu v. State of Rajastha @ Farhu v. State of Rajastha @ Farhu v. State of Rajastha
an an an an , , , , 2025 Law Finder (SC) 668 2025 Law Finder (SC) 668 2025 Law Finder (SC) 66 2025 Law Finder (SC) 66
689 689 689 689 ,
dismissed
d a bail petition without delving
into the merits, strictly because
the
petitioner
r had asserted a clean record des
pite having multiple pending ca
ses
subsequen
ntly exposed by the counter-affid
davit filed by the State/prosecuti
on.
ant part of Firoj @ Farhu Firoj @ Farhu Firoj @ Farhu Firoj @ Farhu (supra)
The relev
) reads thus:
“2. Failure to disclose past ante
tecedents or withholding of informat
ation
about the criminal cases pendi
ing against the petitioner/accused i
is a
ground, in itself, to reject the pra
rayer for grant of bail, as withholding
g of
such relevant information would a
amount to abuse of process.”
ortified in Zeba Khan v. State Zeba Khan v. State Zeba Khan v. State Zeba Khan v. State
e of e of e of e of
8.2
This position was further fo
Uttar Prad Uttar Prad Uttar Prad Uttar Prad
adesh & Ors. [2026 AIR SC 100 adesh & Ors. [2026 AIR SC 100 adesh & Ors. [2026 AIR SC 100 adesh & Ors. [2026 AIR SC 100
006] 006] 06] 06] , wherein the Hon’ble Supre
me
Court em
mphasized that applicants are und
der a solemn obligation to mak
e a
sclosure , inter alia, of criminal
candid di
antecedents, prior bail rejectio
ons,
and coerc
cive processes such as non-baila
able warrants or proclamations,
as
non-disclo
osure strikes at the very root of c
criminal justice administration. T
The
part of Zeba Khan Zeba Khan Zeba Khan Zeba Khan (supra) reads t
relevant p
thus:
“42. It has been consistently emp
phasised by this Court that an accused
d or
applicant seeking bail is under
r a solemn obligation to make a f
fair,
complete and candid disclosure
e of all material facts having a dir
irect
bearing on the exercise of j
judicial discretion. Any suppressi
sion,
concealment or selective disclosu
ure of such material facts amounts to
o an
abuse of the process of law
and strikes at the very root of
the
administration of criminal justice.
e.
47. As repeatedly observed by th
his Court, bail applications are examin
ined
at multiple stages - from the trial
l Court to the High Court and ultimat
ately
this Court - where courts are ofte
en constrained to take a prima facie v
view
on incomplete or selectively prese
ented records. Non-disclosure of mate
erial
aspects such as criminal anteced
edents, prior bail rejections, duration
n of
custody, compliance with constitu
tutional and statutory safeguards, and
d the
progress of trial may result i
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-M-4 CRM
CRM CRM
47220-2026 (O&M) 47220 2026 (O&M)
47220 47220 2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M)
13 13
13 13
conversely, the prolonged inca
arceration of accused persons desp
spite
substantial custody having already
dy been undergone.”
9.
Moreover, Rule 5 of Chapte
er 1-A(b), Volume-V of the Hi
igh
Court Ru
les and Orders of the Punjab a
and Haryana High Court explici
itly
dictates th
hat in every bail application pre
esented before the High Court,
the
applicant
shall state whether a similar app
plication has been made before
the
Supreme
Court, and shall mandatorily me
ention whether he or she is or w
was
involved i
in any other criminal case, along
g with full particulars and decisio
ons
thereof. R
Rule 5 (supra) reads thus:
“5. Bail applications “5. Bail applications.-In ev “5. Bail applications “5. Bail applications
every application for bail presented to
o the
High Court the petitioner shall sta
ate whether similar application has or
has
not been made to the Supreme C
Court, and if made shall state the re
esult
thereof. The petitioner/applicant s
shall also mention whether he/she is/w
/was
involved in any other criminal
al case or not. If yes, particulars
and
decisions thereof. An application
n which does not contain this informat
ation
with the necessary information.”
shall be placed before the bench w
Ergo, an application/petition
10.
n for grant of bail, that deliberat
ely
or misrepresents criminal
antecedents/ previous crimi
inal
conceals
involveme
ments, seeks to misdirect the asses
ssment of the court and subvert
the
cause of j
justice. By presenting a sanitize
ed (or less aggravating) version
n of
his/her p
past, the bail applicant/petitio
oner attempts to manufacture
e a
favourabl
e judicial assessment out of
f an unlawful misrepresentati
on,
attempting
g to turn the court’s equitable
e discretion into an instrument
of
deception
n. A bail applicant/petitioner who
o deliberately poisons the stream
m of
justice at
its source, by putting up false/
/misleading statement as to his/h
her
criminal
antecedents/ previous criminal
l involvements , forfeits the loc
ocus
standi to b
be heard on merits, as no right to
o discretionary relief can arise fro
om
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.09.07 09:45
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment
st shut its doors in limine.
a dishone
st foundation, and the court mus
CRM-M-4 CRM
CRM CRM
47220-2026 (O&M) 47220 2026 (O&M)
47220 47220 2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M)
14 14
14 14
11.
Pertinently, the consequence
es of non-disclosure of complet
ely
correct cr
criminal antecedents/ previous c
criminal involvements apply w
with
significan
ntly heightened severity to an ap
application/petition for anticipato
ory
bail, whe
en contrasted with regular bail
application/petition under Secti
ion
439 CrPC
C (Section 483 BNSS). An inc
carcerated accused seeking regu
ular
bail often
n faces structural constraints in t
the form of severe communicati
ion
barriers,
restricted access to documen
nts and reliance on third-pa
arty
pairokars .
. Conversely, an applicant seek
king pre-arrest bail is at freedo
om
thereby p
possessing direct access to lega
al counsel, case files, and pub
blic
records.
Furthermore, an application/p
petition for anticipatory bail
is
personally
y backed by a sworn affidavit ex
xecuted directly by the petitioner
. A
omission regarding crimi
inal
false s
tatement or deliberate
anteceden
nts/previous criminal involveme
ents in this context transitions
the
petition
from mere procedural non
n-disclosure to active perju
ury.
Conseque
ently, suppression in anticipat
tory bail applications cannot
be
brushed a
aside as an inadvertent clerical o
oversight; it represents a deliber
rate
attempt t
o manipulate judicial proceedi
ings while remaining beyond
the
immediate
e reach of custody.
Ergo, allowing a litigant who
12.
o suppresses material facts to ha
ave
ase evaluated on merits; moreso
o, after the suppression is expos
his/her ca
sed
by the pro
osecution; undermines judicial e
fficiency and encourages dishon
nest
nce of non-disclosure of crimi
inal
litigation
tactics. If the only consequen
anteceden
nts/previous criminal involvem
ments is taking of an adve
erse
inference
by the court while considering s
such bail plea on merits thereof,
the
dishonest
litigants (resorting to such pr
ractise) face no real downside
to
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.09.07 09:45
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment
withholdi
ng or giving misleading/incom
mplete information as they lo
ose
CRM-M-4 CRM
CRM CRM
47220-2026 (O&M) 47220 2026 (O&M)
47220 47220 2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M)
15 15
15 15
nothing b
by taking a chance on deceiving
g the court. Thus, dismissal on
the
sole grou
rial facts, in particular crimi
inal
und of suppression of mater
anteceden
nts/previous criminal involvemen
ents, establishes a crucial deterre
ent,
sending an
n unequivocal signal that approa
aching the court with clean hands
s is
an absolut
te prerequisite for equitable relie
ef.
13.
Pertinently, this growing t
trend of making false/misleadi
ing
to criminal antecedents/previo
ious
statement
ts, particularly with regard t
criminal i
involvements , is a malady that m
must be detested by this Court, a
s it
strikes at
the very root of judicial propriet
ty. To permit a litigant to take co
ourt
of law for
r a ride, is to invite judicial anarc
chy. The judicial time is a precio
ous
public res
source, and its diversion into the
e redundant channels of misleadi
ing
pleas is a
vexatious abuse of process.
An individual seeking an e
equitable relief, while conceali
ing
the process of court. Ergo,
pertinent
aspect, clandestinely mocks
the
omission
exposed is to be considered a d
eliberate, unpardonable subversi
ion
of the rul
le of law. The sanctity of the
judicial process will be seriou
usly
eroded if
f such attempt(s) is not respon
nded with necessary firmness.
A
litigant w
who misuses the process of law
w or take liberties with the tru
uth
should be
e left in no doubt about the cons
sequences to follow. Others shou
uld
be discou
uraged not to venture along the
e same path in the hope or on
n a
misplaced
d expectation of judicial lenienc
cy or indulgence. Exemplary cos
sts,
in such a
a situation are inevitable and n
necessary, so as to ensure that
in
litigation,
as in the law which is rather pr
racticed in our Country, there is
no
premium
on the truth. Such misleading
plea(s) which are deficient in a
any
reasonabi
lity have to be construed as trifli
ing with the Courts and the proc
ess
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.09.07 09:45
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment
of justic
ce. Pertinently, such vexatio
us and virulent attempt(s)
by
CRM-M-4 CRM
CRM CRM
47220-2026 (O&M) 47220 2026 (O&M)
47220 47220 2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M)
16 16
16 16
unscrupul
lous elements, aimed at misusin
ng the process of law and Cour
rts,
ought to
be detested. Accordingly, costs
s, which ought to be veritable a
and
real time i
in nature, ought to be imposed u
upon such litigant.
Analysis Analysis ( Analysis Analysis
(re: facts of t re: facts of t re: facts of the present case re: facts of t he present case he present case) he present case
e petition in hand , it is absolut
14.
Reverting to the facts of the
tely
clear that
t the petitioner has not approac
ched this Court with clean han
nds,
inasmuch
as, she has not disclosed her
r antecedents in the shape of
the
following
g cases:
S.No. Particulars
1 FIR No.365/2017 NDP
PS Act P.S. Sidhuwa Bet
2 FIR No.83/2023 NDPS
S Act P.S. Sadar Jagraon
3 FIR No.64/2017 NDPS
S Act P.S. Sidhuwa Bet
4 FIR No.07/2025 P.S. C
City Jagraon
By way of the applicati
ion (CRM-36362-2026), seeki
ing
amendme
ent/modification of the petition
in hand, the petitioner has n
ow
sought to
disclose her antecedents though
h only after raising objection by
the
learned co
ounsel for the respondent-NCB
at the preliminary stage itself b
but
not given any explanation nay pl
has still n
lausible explanation as to why s
aid
anteceden
nts were not disclosed earlier. Th
here is no explanation forthcomi
ing
as to how
w the petitioner could describe he
erself as a first-time offender wh
hen,
according
g to the material subsequently pla
aced before the Court by way of
f an
applicatio
on by respondent - NCB, she wa
as involved in other criminal cas
ses.
More so,
, the absence of any satisfact
tory explanation assumes grea
ater
significan
nce because the original petition w
was filed along with an affidavit
t of
the petitio
oner herself. A statement made
e on oath before the Court cann
not
subsequen
ntly be diluted merely by filing
an application seeking amendm
ent
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.09.07 09:45
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment
CRM-M-4 CRM
CRM CRM
47220-2026 (O&M) 47220 2026 (O&M)
47220 47220 2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M)
17 17
17 17
after the
prosecution has pointed out
t the omission. The subsequ
ent
disclosure
e does not efface the fact that
when the petitioner had initia
ally
invoked
the jurisdiction of this Court,
, a material fact concerning h
her
anteceden
nts had not been disclosed.
Suppression of material fac
cts,
particular
rly when accompanied by an af
ffidavit of the petitioner, strikes
s at
the bona
fides of the litigant and itself
constitutes a serious circumstan
nce
disentitlin
ng the petitioner to a discret
tionary relief. The present ca
ase,
therefore,
is not one of a mere techni
ical omission and the subsequ
ent
disclosure
e has been made only after the o
objection raised by the responde
ent-
NCB. Ev
en thereafter, no plausible expl
anation has been furnished by
the
petitioner
r for the non-disclosure of her
antecedents in the first instan
nce.
These cir
rcumstances, when considered
cumulatively, leave no room
for
hesitation
n for this Court to hold that ther
re has been material and deliber
rate
tioner in the petition in hand .
suppressio
on of the antecedents of the petit
Ergo, once the petitioner
has approached this Court
by
her criminal antecedents/previo
ious
withholdi
ng the material facts (as to h
criminal i
involvements ), she has forfeited
her entitlement for equitable rel
lief
m of pre-arrest bail. Consequent
ntly, in view of the same, this Co
in the form
ourt
considers
it neither necessary nor duty
y bound to enter into a detai
led
examinati
ion of the merits of the allegatio
ons or to record any finding on
the
evidentiar
ry value of the material colle
ected so far by the investigati
ing
agency. E
Ergo, the petition in hand ought to
o be dismissed on this score alon
ne.
Decision Decision Decision Decision
15.
In view of the prevenient rati
iocination, it is ordained thus:
(i)
The petition in hand is d
devoid of merits and is here
eby
d with costs of ₹50,000 /-, which
dismissed
shall be deposited by the petition
ner
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.09.07 09:45
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment
CRM-M-4 CRM
CRM CRM
47220-2026 (O&M) 47220 2026 (O&M)
47220 47220 2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M)
18 18
18 18
with Chie
ef Judicial Magistrate (CJM), L
Ludhiana, within four weeks fro
om
today. In
case such costs are deposited; C
CJM, Ludhiana shall have the sa
me
remitted t
to Punjab State Legal Services A
Authority, Mohali. In case, the s
aid
costs are
not deposited by the petitioner a
as directed for; the CJM, Ludhia
ana
is directed
d to intimate the Deputy Comm
missioner, Ludhiana who shall ha
ave
such cost
ts recovered from the petitione
er by employing all lawful mea
ans
including
as arrears of land revenue a
and upon realization thereof,
the
Deputy C
Commissioner, Ludhiana shall h
have the same submitted to CJ
JM,
Ludhiana
, for further remittance thereo
f to Punjab State Legal Servic
ces
Authority
y, Mohali. A compliance report
be sent by CJM, Ludhiana as a
also
Deputy C
ommissioner, Ludhiana, to this C
Court accordingly.
(ii)
Registry is directed to transm
mit a copy of this judgment to CJ
JM,
Ludhiana
as also Deputy Commissioner, L
Ludhiana for requisite complianc
ce.
(iii)
Any observations made and/
/or submissions noted hereinabo
ove
shall not h
have any effect on merits of the
e case and the investigating agen
ncy
as also the
e trial Court shall proceed furthe
er, in accordance with law, witho
out
being infl
luenced with this order.
(iv)
Pending application(s), if any
y, shall also stand disposed of.
Septembe
Ajay/Mahavir
(SUMEET GOEL) (SUMEET GOEL) (SUMEET GOEL) (SUMEET GOEL)
JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE
er 03, 2026
ir
Whether speaking/reasoned:
Yes/No
Whether reportable:
Yes/No
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.09.07 09:45
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment