LexKUSHA DURUKA versus STATE OF ODISHA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
* Author [2024] 1 S.C.R. 604 : 2024 INSC 46 Kusha Duruka v. The State of Odisha (Criminal Appeal No.303 of 2024) 19 January 2024 [Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the prerequisites to be mandatorily mentioned in the application filed for grant of bail; and effect of non-mentioning of details of previous bail applications and order in all bail applications. Headnotes Bail – Bail applications – Prerequisites to be mandatorily mentioned in the application filed for grant of bail: Held: Details and copies of orders passed in the earlier bail applications filed by the petitioner which have been already decided – Details of any bail application filed by the petitioner, pending in any court, higher or lower court, and if none is pending, a clear statement to that effect – All bail applications filed by the different accused in the same FIR to be listed before the same Judge – Registry of the court to also annex a report generated from the system about decided or pending bail applications in the case in question – Investigating Officer assisting the State Counsel in court duty bound to apprise him of the orders, if any, passed by the court with reference to different bail applications or other proceedings in the same crime case – Counsel appearing for the parties to conduct themselves truly like officers of the Court – These suggestions are to streamline the proceedings and avoid anomalies with reference to the bail applications. [Paras 20, 21] Bail – Grant of bail pending trial – Non-mentioning of details of previous bail applications and order in bail applications – On facts, allegations under the NDPS Act against the appellant and co-accused – Rejection of bail applications by the Sessions [2024] 1 S.C.R. 605 Kusha Duruka v. The State of Odisha Court – However, the High Court allowed the co-accused’s bail application whereas appellant’s bail application was dismissed – Both the orders pronounced by different judges of the High Court– Thereagainst, the appellant filed SLP and notice was issued – Meanwhile, the second bail application filed by the appellant was allowed by the judge of the High Court who had granted the bail to the co-accussed, however in the said order, there was no mention of the fact that it was the second bail application filed by the appellant nor regarding the pendency of the SLP before this Court, in which notice had already been issued - Propriety: Held: In the list of dates and events as also in the body of the bail application, the appellant did not mention regarding disposal of his earlier bail application by the High Court and also filing of the SLP in this Court – During the pendency of the matter before this Court a fresh bail application was filed not only before the trial court but even before the High Court – High Court even granted bail to the appellant – In the bail application filed before the High Court, it was not mentioned that the same was second bail application filed by the appellant – This Court cannot comment on the contents of the bail application filed before the Sessions Judge as the copy thereof is not available on record here – Though considering the conduct of the appellant, one of the option available was to cancel his bail, however, such an extreme step is not taken – Appeal is dismissed as infructuous and the cost of ₹10,000/-, imposed on the appellant. [Paras 18, 22, 23] Administration of justice – Justice delivery system – Suppression of material facts – Effect: Held: Litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice with falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of facts, 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 – Maxim supressio veri, expression faisi, i.e. suppression of the truth is equivalent to the expression of falsehood, gets attracted – Maxims. [Para 7] 606 [2024] 1 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports Case Law Cited Pradhani Jani v. The State of Odisha Criminal Appeal No.1503/2023 decided on 15.05.2023 – relied on. Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar Verma [1994] 5 Suppl. SCR 465:(1995) 1 SCC 421; K.D. Sharma Vs. Steel Authority of India Limited and others [2008] 10 SCR 454:(2008) 12 SCC 481; Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others [2009] 16 SCR 111:(2010) 2 SCC 114; Moti Lal Songara Vs. Prem Prakash @ Pappu and another [2013] 6 SCR 496:(201
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.