New Delhi
In a move aimed at tightening scrutiny in bail proceedings, the Supreme Court on Wednesday made it mandatory for accused persons to furnish comprehensive details in their bail applications, warning that suppression or selective disclosure of material facts amounts to an abuse of the process of law.
A bench of justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and R Mahadevan issued the directions while cancelling the bail granted by the Allahabad High Court to Mazahar Khan, accused of issuing forged degree certificates to lawyers and others. The top court found that Khan had deliberately concealed his criminal antecedents in proceedings before the high court as well as in filings before the Supreme Court.
Describing the conduct as reflective of a “growing and disturbing trend”, the bench underscored that an accused 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,” the court said.
The bench noted that in the present case, the accused had concealed his criminal antecedents both in his petition for quashing the FIR and in successive bail applications before the high court. Even before the Supreme Court, only partial disclosure was made in a counter-affidavit, despite multiple criminal cases being on record.
{{/usCountry}}The bench noted that in the present case, the accused had concealed his criminal antecedents both in his petition for quashing the FIR and in successive bail applications before the high court. Even before the Supreme Court, only partial disclosure was made in a counter-affidavit, despite multiple criminal cases being on record.
{{/usCountry}}The court said that bail applications are examined at multiple judicial levels -- from trial courts to high courts and ultimately the Supreme Court, often on a prima facie assessment of records placed before them. Non-disclosure of material aspects such as prior bail rejections, criminal history, duration of custody, or compliance with constitutional and statutory safeguards, it added, could either result in unwarranted grant of bail or prolonged incarceration despite substantial custody having already been undergone.
To promote uniformity, transparency and integrity in bail adjudication, the court evolved what it described as an “illustrative disclosure framework”, clarifying that it is recommendatory in nature and may be adopted, adapted or refined by high courts in accordance with their procedural frameworks.
Under the framework outlined by the court, every bail applicant, at whatever stage of the proceedings, must place before the court a complete factual canvas of the case. This would mean disclosing the basic case particulars like the FIR number and date, the police station, district and state concerned, the penal provisions invoked and the maximum punishment prescribed for the alleged offences. The applicant must also clearly state the date of arrest and the total period of custody already undergone, so that the court is apprised of the custodial history at a glance.
Equally important is a candid account of where the case stands in the criminal process -- whether it is still under investigation, whether a charge sheet has been filed, whether cognisance has been taken, charges framed or the trial commenced, along with the total number of witnesses cited in the charge sheet and how many have actually been examined. The applicant is further required to disclose criminal antecedents, including details of prior FIRs, the police stations involved, the sections invoked and the present status of each case, whether pending, ending in acquittal or conviction. In addition, the plea must set out the history of previous bail applications, specifying the court approached, the case number and the outcome. Also, the court made it clear that the existence of any coercive process, such as issuance of a non-bailable warrant or a declaration of the accused as a proclaimed offender, must also be truthfully revealed.
The bench directed the registrar (judicial) of the Supreme Court to circulate the judgment to the registrar generals of all high courts. The high courts, it said, may examine the feasibility of issuing administrative directions or incorporating suitable provisions in their respective rules in line with their rule-making powers. The judgment is also to be circulated to the district judiciary for guidance.