Suppression of criminal antecedents disentitles an accused to discretionary bail relief.

In brief

The question

Whether the petitioner was entitled to bail under Section 483 of the BNSS in view of the allegations of armed firing at a police party and his alleged possession of a loaded AK-47 rifle and other incriminating materials?

The court held

The Court answered the bail issue against the petitioner.

It also directed

In view of the grave allegations, recovery of a loaded AK-47 rifle, the petitioner’s five criminal antecedents and suppression of those antecedents in the bail application, the Court declined to grant bail under Section 483 of the BNSS.

The bail application was rejected and the BLAPL was disposed of.

A soft copy of the judgment was directed to be transmitted to the concerned court.

01Facts

The petitioner sought bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Baipariguda P.S. Case No.111 of 2025, corresponding to G.R. Case No.579 of 2025, pending before the Sessions Judge, Koraput.

p. 1 · ¶ 1

He was accused of offences under Sections 147, 148, 109(1) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, read with Section 27 of the Arms Act, Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act and Section 17 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act.

p. 1 · ¶ 1

The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, stated to be a member of the Andhra-Odisha Border Maoist organisation, opened fire at a police party along with other persons and was apprehended at the spot with arms, ammunition and communication equipment.

p. 2 · ¶ 2

The Court noted that he was allegedly found with a loaded AK-47 rifle and had five prior criminal cases involving offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, the Arms Act and allied penal provisions.

p. 2 · ¶ 4 · p. 3 · ¶ 4

The petitioner had not disclosed these criminal antecedents in the bail application, although they appeared from the forwarding report.

p. 3 · ¶ 4

02Issues

i.Whether the petitioner was entitled to bail under Section 483 of the BNSS in view of the allegations of armed firing at a police party and his alleged possession of a loaded AK-47 rifle and other incriminating materials?

p. 1 · ¶ 1 · p. 2 · ¶ 2, 4

ii.Whether suppression of the petitioner’s five criminal antecedents disentitled him from the discretionary relief of bail?

p. 3 · ¶ 4–5

03Law Applied

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which governs the High Court’s power to grant bail.

p. 1 · ¶ 1

It considered the seriousness of the alleged offences under Sections 147, 148, 109(1) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, read with Section 27 of the Arms Act, Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act and Section 17 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act.

p. 1 · ¶ 1

The Court further relied on the principle that bail is a discretionary relief and may be refused where an accused suppresses material facts, particularly previous criminal involvement.

p. 3 · ¶ 4

For this proposition, it relied on Munnesh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1319, wherein the Supreme Court held that an accused who suppresses material facts regarding involvement in criminal cases is not entitled to the discretionary relief of bail.

p. 3 · ¶ 4

Provisions in the judgment · 21 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 61 Section 109 Section 147 Section 148

Arms Act, 1959 Section 25 Section 27

Explosive Substances Act, 1908 Section 4

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 120 Section 121 Section 124 Section 143 Section 147 Section 148 Section 149 Section 307

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 Section 10 Section 13 Section 16 Section 18 Section 20

04Reasoning

The Court found the allegations prima facie serious because the petitioner was allegedly apprehended at the scene of an armed confrontation with a police party while possessing a loaded AK-47 rifle and other incriminating materials.

p. 2 · ¶ 4

The seriousness of the present allegations was further aggravated by his five criminal antecedents involving offences under the UAP Act, the Arms Act and provisions concerning armed violence and offences against the State.

p. 2 · ¶ 4 · p. 3 · ¶ 4

The Court also treated the petitioner’s failure to disclose these antecedents in the bail application as suppression of material facts.

p. 3 · ¶ 4–5

Applying the principle stated in Munnesh, the Court held that such suppression disentitled the petitioner from the discretionary relief of bail, particularly at that stage of the proceedings.

p. 3 · ¶ 4–5