Supreme Court Addresses Misrepresentation in Bail Applications: Kusha Duruka vs. State of Odisha (2024)

Date of the Judgment: January 19, 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 46

Judges: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Rajesh Bindal

Can a litigant suppress facts about previous bail applications and the pendency of a case before the Supreme Court while seeking bail from the High Court? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical issue in a case where the appellant was found to have concealed material information. This judgment highlights the importance of transparency and honesty in judicial proceedings.

The Supreme Court, in this criminal appeal, examined a situation where an accused, while seeking bail from the High Court, failed to disclose that his earlier bail application had been rejected and that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) against that rejection was pending before the Supreme Court. The Court expressed strong disapproval of this practice, emphasizing that litigants must approach the courts with clean hands and full disclosure of material facts. The judgment was authored by Justice Rajesh Bindal, with Justice Vikram Nath concurring.

Case Background

The appellant, Kusha Duruka, was arrested on February 3, 2022, in connection with a case registered under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The allegation was that he and a co-accused were found in possession of 23.8 kg of Ganja. After the rejection of his initial bail application by the Sessions Judge, he approached the High Court for bail.

While his first bail application was pending in the High Court, the co-accused was granted bail. Subsequently, the appellant’s first bail application was rejected by the High Court on March 6, 2023. Following this, the appellant filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court, which was admitted on September 22, 2023. However, during the pendency of the SLP, the appellant filed a second bail application before the High Court without disclosing the pendency of the SLP. The High Court granted him bail on October 11, 2023, without being informed of the pending SLP before the Supreme Court. This concealment of facts led to the Supreme Court taking cognizance of the matter.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellant’s first bail application was rejected by the Sessions Judge on February 4, 2022. Subsequently, he filed a bail application before the High Court, which was also rejected on March 6, 2023. The co-accused, however, was granted bail by the High Court on January 17, 2023. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court by filing a Special Leave Petition (SLP), which was admitted on September 22, 2023. While the SLP was pending, the appellant filed a second bail application before the High Court, which was allowed on October 11, 2023. Crucially, the High Court was not informed about the pendency of the SLP before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of the principles governing bail applications and the duty of litigants to disclose all material facts to the court. The relevant legal provision under which the appellant was charged is Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. This section deals with offences related to the production, manufacture, possession, sale, purchase, transportation, import inter-State, export inter-State, or use of cannabis.

The Supreme Court also discussed the importance of maintaining the integrity of the judicial process, citing previous judgments that emphasize the need for litigants to approach the courts with clean hands and without suppressing material facts. The court highlighted the principle that “suppressio veri, expressio falsi” (suppression of truth is equivalent to the expression of falsehood), which is a fundamental principle in the administration of justice.

Arguments

The arguments in this case were primarily focused on the conduct of the appellant and the procedure followed by the High Court. The appellant, while seeking bail, did not disclose the fact that his first bail application had been rejected by the High Court and that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) against that rejection was pending before the Supreme Court. This concealment was the central point of contention.

The State argued that the appellant’s conduct was a clear attempt to mislead the court and abuse the judicial process. The State also pointed out that the High Court, while granting bail in the second application, was not aware of the pendency of the SLP before the Supreme Court. The State Counsel before the High Court was also unaware of the rejection of the first bail application and the filing of the SLP before the Supreme Court.

The appellant, on the other hand, did not provide a substantive defense against the charge of misrepresentation. His primary argument was that the co-accused had already been granted bail, and therefore, he was also entitled to bail. However, the Supreme Court did not accept this argument as a justification for the suppression of material facts.

The Supreme Court also took note of the fact that the High Court’s registry did not properly follow its own Standing Order No.2 of 2023, which requires that subsequent bail applications be listed before the same judge who had earlier dealt with a bail application in the same FIR. The court observed that the High Court registry had failed to annex the order rejecting the appellant’s first bail application with the second bail application.

Submissions by the Appellant:

• The co-accused was granted bail, and therefore, the appellant should also be granted bail.

Submissions by the State:

• The appellant suppressed the fact that his first bail application was rejected by the High Court.
• The appellant suppressed the fact that an SLP against the rejection of his first bail application was pending before the Supreme Court.
• The State Counsel before the High Court was not aware of the rejection of the first bail application and the filing of the SLP before the Supreme Court.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in a numbered list. However, the following issues were implicitly addressed:

✓ Whether the appellant had suppressed material facts by not disclosing the rejection of his first bail application and the pendency of the SLP before the Supreme Court while filing a second bail application before the High Court.

✓ Whether the High Court’s registry had followed its own Standing Order No.2 of 2023 regarding the listing of subsequent bail applications.

✓ What are the duties of the counsels appearing for the parties to conduct themselves truly like officers of the Court?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on several previous judgments to emphasize the importance of truth and transparency in judicial proceedings. The authorities considered by the court are as follows:

Cases:

Legal Provisions:

• Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985: This section was cited as the legal provision under which the appellant was charged.

Judgment

The Supreme Court, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, held that the appellant had indeed suppressed material facts by not disclosing the rejection of his first bail application and the pendency of the SLP before the Supreme Court. The Court also noted that the High Court’s registry had not followed its own Standing Order No.2 of 2023. The Supreme Court emphasized that litigants must approach the courts with clean hands and make full disclosure of all material facts.

The Court also noted that the State Counsel did not point out the factum of pendency of another bail application filed by the co-accused arising out of the same FIR. The concerned investigating officer must be aware of this fact but had not pointed out the same before the court. The Court also held that the counsels appearing for the parties have to conduct themselves truly like officers of the Court.

The Supreme Court did not cancel the appellant’s bail, but imposed a token cost of ₹10,000, to be deposited with the Mediation and Conciliation Centre attached to the Orissa High Court. The Court also directed that a copy of the order be sent to the Registrars General of all High Courts to be placed before the Chief Justices for correction of the system, wherever required.

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar Verma [(1995) 1 SCC 421]: *Cited to emphasize that any attempt to deceive the court or interfere with the administration of justice is contempt of court.*
• K.D. Sharma Vs. Steel Authority of India Limited and others [(2008) 12 SCC 481]: *Cited to emphasize that an applicant who does not come with candid facts and a “clean breast” cannot hold a writ of the court with “soiled hands.”*
• Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others [(2010) 2 SCC 114]: *Cited to note the progressive decline in values and the conduct of litigants who resort to falsehood and misrepresentation.*
• Moti Lal Songara Vs. Prem Prakash @ Pappu and another [(2013) 9 SCC 199]: *Cited to emphasize that suppression of truth is equivalent to the expression of falsehood, and that the court is not a laboratory where children come to play.*
• Saumya Chaurasia v. Directorate of Enforcement [2023 INSC 1073]: *Cited to highlight a recent case where a litigant attempted to overreach the court by concealing material facts.*
• Pradip Sahu v. The State of Assam [Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 4876 of 2022, decided on 24.08.2023]: *Cited to show a case where the court accepted an apology for concealing material facts.*
• Pradhani Jani v. The State of Odisha [Criminal Appeal No.1503/2023 decided on 15.05.2023]: *Cited to highlight the importance of listing bail applications arising out of the same FIR before the same judge.*

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the principle that litigants must approach the courts with clean hands and make full disclosure of all material facts. The Court emphasized the importance of maintaining the integrity of the judicial process and ensuring that the stream of justice remains unpolluted. The Court also highlighted the need for the High Court’s registry to follow its own Standing Orders and for the counsels to conduct themselves as officers of the court.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the following points:

• The appellant’s suppression of material facts was a clear attempt to mislead the court.
• The High Court’s registry did not follow its own Standing Order No.2 of 2023.
• The State Counsel did not point out the factum of pendency of another bail application filed by the co-accused arising out of the same FIR.
• The counsels appearing for the parties have to conduct themselves truly like officers of the Court.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:

Fact:Law Ratio Table:

Logical Reasoning:

Key Takeaways

• Litigants must make full and honest disclosure of all material facts in their pleadings.
• Suppression of material facts is considered an attempt to mislead the court and abuse the judicial process.
• High Courts must ensure that their registries follow the standing orders regarding the listing of bail applications.
• Counsels appearing for the parties have to conduct themselves truly like officers of the Court.
• Investigating officers must apprise the State Counsel of all previous orders passed in the same crime case.
• The Supreme Court has the power to take cognizance of misrepresentation and take corrective measures.

Directions

The Supreme Court gave the following directions:

• The appellant was directed to deposit a token cost of ₹10,000 with the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, attached to the Orissa High Court, within eight weeks.
• A copy of the order was directed to be sent to the Registrars General of all the High Courts to be placed before the Chief Justices for correction of the system, wherever required.
• The Court also issued guidelines for mandatory disclosure in bail applications:
  • Details and copies of orders passed in earlier bail applications.
  • Details of any pending bail applications.
  • The registry of the court should annex a report about decided or pending bail applications.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that litigants must approach the courts with clean hands and make full disclosure of all material facts. The judgment reinforces the principle that suppression of material facts is equivalent to the expression of falsehood and is an abuse of the judicial process. The judgment also emphasizes the need for High Courts to ensure that their registries follow the standing orders regarding the listing of bail applications.

There is no change in the previous position of law, but the Supreme Court has reiterated the existing principles and provided specific directions to ensure better compliance and transparency in the judicial system.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s judgment in Kusha Duruka vs. State of Odisha highlights the critical importance of honesty and transparency in judicial proceedings. The Court has made it clear that litigants cannot suppress material facts and expect to receive relief. The judgment serves as a reminder that the courts are not a playground for manipulation and that those who attempt to mislead the court will be dealt with sternly. The directions given by the Supreme Court are aimed at ensuring that the judicial process is not undermined by misrepresentation and that the stream of justice remains unpolluted.