Administration of Justice
Effect of suppression or concealment of material facts in court proceedings—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—Maxim supressio veri, expression faisi, i.e. suppression of the truth is equivalent to the expression of falsehood, gets attracted.
[Para 7]
Bail
Applications for grant of bail—Suppression or concealment of material facts—Directions issued to mandatorily mention the details of previous bail applications and orders in all bail applications to avoid confusion in future.
Held : To avoid any confusion in future it would be appropriate to mandatorily mention in the application(s) filed for grant of bail:
(1) Details and copies of order(s) passed in the earlier bail application(s) filed by the petitioner which have been already decided.
(2) 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 has to be made.
This court has already directed vide order passed in Pradhani Jani v. State of Odisha, Criminal Appeal No. 1503 of 2023 decided on 15.05.2023 that all bail applications filed by the different accused in the same FIR should be listed before the same Judge except in cases where the Judge has superannuated or has been transferred or otherwise incapacitated to hear the matter. The system needs to be followed meticulously to avoid any discrepancies in the orders.
In case it is mentioned on the top of the bail application or any other place which is clearly visible, that the application for bail is either first, second or third and so on, so that it is convenient for the court to appreciate the arguments in that light. If this fact is mentioned in the order, it will enable the next higher court to appreciate the arguments in that light.
(3) The registry of the court should also annex a report generated from the system about decided or pending bail application(s) in the crime case in question.
The same system needs to be followed even in the case of private complaints as all cases filed in the trial courts are assigned specific numbers (CNR No.), even if no FIR number is there.
(4) It should be the duty of the Investigating Officer/any officer assisting the State Counsel in court to apprise him of the order(s), if any, passed by the court with reference to different bail applications or other proceedings in the same crime case. And the counsel appearing for the parties have to conduct themselves truly like officers of the Court.
[Para 20]