In a significant ruling reinforcing transparency and accountability in criminal proceedings, the Supreme Court of India has dismissed the bail plea of an accused who failed to disclose his criminal antecedents and issued mandatory directions requiring all bail petitioners to declare their criminal history upfront in the synopsis of their Special Leave Petitions (SLPs).
Background
The petitioner, Munnesh, was arrested on 26 May 2018 in connection with a murder case registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The trial is ongoing, with eight witnesses now being examined by the prosecution out of an initially proposed list of twenty-two.
The bail application was earlier rejected by the Allahabad High Court. Challenging that decision, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court via a Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution.
Suppression of Material Facts
While examining the petition, the apex court noted that Munnesh had not disclosed his criminal antecedents in the SLP. As revealed in the State’s counter affidavit, the petitioner had a criminal history involving eight cases, including a prior conviction under Sections 379 and 411 IPC.
When questioned, the petitioner’s counsel submitted that the omission was due to incomplete information provided by the pairokar (informant). The Court, however, found this explanation unsatisfactory and emphasized the seriousness of withholding such information.
“Had the petitioner’s criminal history been disclosed in the special leave petition, we wonder whether notice on it would have at all been issued,” the Bench remarked sternly.
Court’s Observations & Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the bail plea, stating that:
- Suppression of material facts disqualifies a petitioner from receiving discretionary relief such as bail.
- Even on merits, no strong case was made out for bail, as the trial was progressing and key witnesses had been examined.
“Since the petitioner has suppressed material facts with regard to his involvement in criminal cases, he is not entitled to the discretionary relief of bail,” the Court held.
Before parting with the matter, the Court issued a binding direction for all future criminal SLPs seeking bail under Sections 438/439 CrPC or Sections 482/483 BNSS (Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita):
“Each individual who approaches this Court… shall mandatorily disclose in the ‘SYNOPSIS’ that either he is a man of clean antecedents or, if he has knowledge of his involvement in any criminal case, he shall clearly indicate the same together with the stage that the proceedings… have reached.”
The Court added that if any such disclosure is found to be incorrect at a later stage, it could itself be a ground for dismissal of the SLP.
Highlighting a growing trend of concealment in bail petitions, the Court expressed concern over abuse of its jurisdiction:
“This Court, being the apex court of the country, is being taken for a ride… It is time that such state of affairs is not allowed to continue further.”
The Court referred to its earlier orders dated 13 October 2023 (Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab) and 19 October 2023 (Sheikh Bhola v. State of Bihar), where it had urged steps to ensure proper disclosures. However, since those directions did not yield results, the present judgment now formalizes the obligation.
Case Details
- Case Title: Munnesh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
- SLP (Crl.) No.: 1400 of 2025
- Date of Judgment: April 3, 2025
- Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan
- Petitioner’s Advocate: Mr. Ayush Negi, Advocate-on-Record, with Ms. Vishakha Upadhyaya and Ms. Aarushi Gupta
- Respondent’s Advocate (State of U.P.): Mr. Sarvesh Singh Baghel, AOR
- Impugned Order: Allahabad High Court order dated 03.10.2023 in CRMBA No. 38065 of 2023
