Limitation | Delay Condonation Cannot Be An Act Of Generosity: Supreme Court Refuses To Condone 31-Year Delay To Challenge Decree Sentence Suspension In Murder Cases Only Under Exceptional Circumstances; Presumption Of Innocence Erased Upon Conviction: Supreme Court Inquiry Commission Report Cannot Be Used For Disciplinary Action If Statutory Right To Cross-Examine Denied: Gauhati High Court Use Of Trademark On Website Accessible In India Constitutes Domestic Use, Geo-Blocking Mandatory For Territorial Restrictions: Delhi High Court Civil Court Jurisdiction To Interfere With DRT Proceedings Is Absolutely Barred Even For Third Parties: Madras High Court Adding a Prefix Can’t Erase Deceptive Similarity – Delhi High Court Orders Removal of ‘ARUN’ from Trademark ‘AiC ARUN’ Cannot Resile From Mediated Settlement After Taking Benefits: Supreme Court Quashes Wife's DV Case, Grants Divorce Absolute Indemnity Obligation Triggers Immediately Upon Court-Directed Deposit, Not On Final Appeal: Supreme Court Magistrate Directing Investigation Under Section 156(3) CrPC Only Requires Prima Facie Satisfaction Of Cognizable Offence: Supreme Court Cancellation Of Sale Deed Under Specific Relief Act Not A Pre-Condition To Initiate Criminal Case For Forgery: Supreme Court Amalgamated Company Cannot Claim Set-Off Of Predecessor's Losses Under Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act Without Specific Statutory Provision: Supreme Court Overlapping Split Chargesheets May Raise Double Jeopardy Concerns, Supreme Court Notes While Granting Bail To Former Jharkhand Minister Supreme Court Grants Bail To Convicted Ex-Jharkhand Minister Facing Overlapping Prosecutions From Split Chargesheets Electricity Act Appellate Authority Is A Quasi-Judicial Body Subject To High Court’s Supervisory Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court Mere Discrepancy In Date Of Birth Across Certificates Doesn't Amount To Fraud If No Undue Advantage Is Derived: Allahabad High Court Interest Earned On Funds Temporarily Parked Pending Project Deployment Cannot Be Taxed As 'Income From Other Sources': Delhi High Court Reference Court Cannot Set Aside Collector's Award Or Remand Matter For Fresh Determination: Allahabad High Court Administrative Transfer Causing Revenue Loss Defies Court Process: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Ferry Ghat Handover Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka High Court

Anticipatory Bail Dismissed - Non-Disclosure of Crucial Facts: Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent decision, the Supreme Court of India dismissed three separate anticipatory bail appeals filed by MD Kamran and others against the State of Bihar and another. The appeals were directed against the orders of the High Court of Judicature at Patna, which had denied anticipatory bail to the appellants in a case involving multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code, including Sections 307, 147, 148, 149, 324, 325, 326, 380, 341, 342, 504, and 506.

The Supreme Court, in its order dated September 22, 2023, granted leave to consider the appeals but ultimately found that the appellants had failed to disclose crucial facts regarding the initiation of proceedings under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), and the subsequent dismissal of their Revision Petition against the same.

The Court's observations were clear: "Non-disclosure of relevant facts and factors in the Special Leave Petitions and, at any rate, when this Court passed the interim order of protection, would and should disentitle them to any relief at this stage. There cannot be any doubt with respect to the position that a person approaching this Court with no clean hands does not deserve any leniency or favor from this Court."

This decision underscores the importance of full and honest disclosure in legal proceedings, especially when seeking anticipatory bail. The Court's decision reaffirms the principle that individuals approaching the court with incomplete or misleading information may not be entitled to pre-arrest bail.

The appellants were represented by a team of advocates, including Mr. Randhir Kumar Ojha, Mr. Devashish Bharuka, Ms. Sarvshree, and others. On the other side, the State of Bihar was represented by Mr. Devashish Bharuka, Mr. Samir Ali Khan, Mr. Pranjal Sharma, and several other advocates.

This ruling serves as a reminder to litigants and legal practitioners about the importance of transparency and full disclosure in legal proceedings, as failing to do so may have significant consequences on the outcome of the case.

Date of Decision: September 22, 2023

MD KAMRAN & ORS. vs THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. 

Latest Legal News