SC issues directions to mention details of earlier bail orders in the grant of bail applications to avoid any confusion in the future.
While hearing the Kusha Duruka vs. State of Odisha case on January 19, 2024, the Supreme Court (SC) of India listed the necessary conditions to be mentioned in the grant of bail applications. It directed all the Courts to ensure that no litigant approaching for bail should mislead the court by suppressing facts. The bench added to highlight every detail of earlier bail pleas moved by the same litigant in the bail application presented before this court (SC). The directions were delivered by a two-judge bench of the SC comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Rajesh Bindal. The SC said “In our opinion, to avoid any confusion in the future it would be appropriate to mandatorily mention in the application(s) filed for grant of bail:
(i) details and copies of order(s) passed in the earlier bail application(s) by the petitioner which have been already decided.
(ii) details of any bail application(s) filed by the petitioner, which is pending either in any court, below the court in question or the higher court, and if none is pending, a clear statement to that effect as to be made.”
The directions were issued after the bench came across an Odisha High Court order granting bail to one Kusha Durukan at a time when the SC was hearing his appeal which challenged the earlier Odisha HC order rejecting bail. During the court proceedings, the bench refused to allow such litigants to get the better of the justice-delivery system, it said “Suppression of material facts from the court of law, is actually playing fraud with the court. The maxim supressio veri, expression faisi, i.e. suppression of the truth is equivalent to the expression of falsehood, gets attracted. It's nothing but the degradation of moral values in the society…”
The SC illustrated the importance of truth in the judicial system and mentioned that “Truth constituted an integral part of the justice-delivery system in the pre-Independence era, however, post-Independence period has seen drastic changes in our value system. The materialism has overshadowed the old ethos and the quest for personal gain has become so intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation, and suppression of facts in the court proceedings.” It further observed “In the last 40 years, the values have gone down and now litigants can go to any extent to mislead the court. They have no respect for the truth. The principle has evolved to meet the challenges posed by this new breed of litigants. It is well settled that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final. Suppression of material facts from the court of law is actually playing fraud with the court.”
Moreover, the SC bench criticized such conduct by the bail applicant and stated that “Though considering the conduct of the petitioner, one of the options available was to cancel his bail, however, we do not propose to take such an extreme step in the case in hand. However, this can be the option exercised by the Court if the facts of the case so demand seeing the conduct of the parties.” Further, the SC dismissed the appeal but imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000 on the bail applicant. It further ordered to deposit the amount with the Mediation and Conciliation Centre attached to the Odisha HC within eight weeks from January 19, 2024.
