Supreme Court of India

Kusha Duruka vs State Of Odisha on 19 January, 2024

Author:
Rajesh Bindal

Bench:
Rajesh Bindal
,
Vikram Nath

2024 INSC 46 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO._303 OF 2024
(ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (CRL.) NO. 12301 OF 2023)

KUSHA DURUKA … Appellant(s)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ODISHA … Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

RAJESH BINDAL, J.

Leave granted.

2. This is another case in which an effort has been made to

pollute the stream of administration of justice.

3. About three decades ago, this Court in
Chandra Shashi v.

Anil Kumar Verma1
was faced with a situation where an attempt was

made to deceive the Court and interfere with the administration of

Signature Not Verified

justice. The litigant was held to be guilty of contempt of court. It was

Digitally signed by

POOJA SHARMA

Date: 2024.01.19

16:57:27 IST

Reason:
(1995) 1 SCC 421
a case in which husband had filed fabricated document to oppose the

prayer of his wife seeking transfer of matrimonial proceedings.

Finding him guilty of contempt of court, he was sentenced to two

weeks’ imprisonment by this Court. This Court observed as under:

"1. The stream of administration of justice has to
remain unpolluted so that purity of court's atmosphere
may give vitality to all the organs of the State. Polluters of
judicial firmament are, therefore, required to be well
taken care of to maintain the sublimity of court's
environment; so also to enable it to administer justice
fairly and to the satisfaction of all concerned.

2. Anyone who takes recourse to fraud, deflects
the course of judicial proceedings; or if anything is done
with oblique motive, the same interferes with the
administration of justice. Such persons are required to be
properly dealt with, not only to punish them for the
wrong done, but also to deter others from indulging in
similar acts which shake the faith of people in the
system of administration of justice.

* * *

14. The legal position thus is that if the
publication be with intent to deceive the court or one
made with an intention to defraud, the same would be
contempt, as it would interfere with administration of
justice. It would,in any case, tend to interfere with the
same. This would definitely be so if a fabricated
documents is filed with the aforesaid mens rea. In the
case at hand the fabricated document was apparently to
deceive the court; the intention to defraud is writ large.
Anil Kumar is, therefore, guilty of contempt."

4.
In
K.D. Sharma Vs. Steel Authority of India Limited
and

others2 it was observed by this Court:

"39. If the primary object as highlighted in
Kensington Income Tax Commrs., (1917) 1 KB 486 :

86 LJKB 257 : 116 LT 136 (CA) is kept in mind, an
applicant who does not come with candid facts and
"clean breast" cannot hold a writ of the court with "soiled
hands". Suppression or concealment of material facts is
not an advocacy. It is a jugglery, manipulation,
manoeuvring or misrepresentation, which has no place in
equitable and prerogative jurisdiction. If the applicant
does not disclose all the material facts fairly and truly
but states them in a distorted manner and misleads the
court, the court has inherent power in order to protect
itself and to prevent an abuse of its process to discharge
the rule nisi and refuse to proceed further with the
examination of the case on merits. If the court does not
reject the petition on that ground, the court would be
failing in its duty. In fact, such an applicant requires to be
dealt with for contempt of court for abusing the process
of the court." [emphasis supplied]
(2008) 12 SCC 481
5.
In
Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh
and others3, this

Court noticed the progressive decline in the values of life and the

conduct of the new creed of litigants, who are far away from truth. It

was observed as under:

"1. For many centuries Indian society cherished
two basic values of life i.e."satya" (truth) and "ahinsa"

(non- violence). Mahavir, Gautam Buddha and Mahatma
Gandhi guided the people to ingrain these values in
their daily life. Truth constituted an integral part of the
justice- delivery system which was in vogue in the pre-
Independence era and the people used to feel proud to
tell truth in the courts irrespective of the consequences.
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.

2. In the last 40 years, a new creed of litigants
has cropped up. Those who belong to this creed do not
have any respect for truth. They shamelessly resort to
(2010) 2 SCC 114
falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals.

In order to meet the challenge posed by this new
creed of litigants, the courts have, from time to time,
evolved new rules and it is now well established 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.”

(emphasis supplied)

6.
In
Moti Lal Songara Vs. Prem Prakash @ Pappu
and

another4, this Court, considering the issue regarding concealment of

facts before the Court, observed that "court is not a laboratory where

children come to play”, and opined as under:

"19. The second limb of the submission is whether
in the obtaining factual matrix, the order passed by the
High Court discharging the accused-respondent is
justified in law. We have clearly stated that though the
respondent was fully aware about the fact that charges
had been framed against him by the learned trial Judge,
yet he did not bring the same to the notice of the
revisional court hearing the revision against the order
taking cognizance. It is a clear case of suppression. It was
within the special knowledge of the accused. Any one
who takes recourse to method of suppression in a court
of law, is, in actuality, playing fraud with the court, and
(2013) 9 SCC 199
the maxim supressio veri, expression faisi , i.e.,
suppression of the truth is equivalent to the expression of
falsehood, gets attracted. We are compelled to say so
as there has been a calculated concealment of the fact
before the revisional court. It can be stated with certitude
that the accused- respondent tried togain advantage by
such factual suppression. The fraudulent intention is writ
large. In fact, he has shown his courage of ignorance and
tried to playpossum.

20. The High Court, as we have seen, applied the
principle "when infrastructure collapses, the
superstructure is bound to collapse". However, as the
order has been obtained by practising fraud and
suppressing material fact before a court of law to gain
advantage, the said order cannot be allowed to stand."

(emphasis supplied)

7. It was held in the
judgments
referred to above
that one of

the two cherished basic values by Indian society for centuries is

"satya" (truth) and the same has been put under the carpet by the

petitioner. 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. In the last 40 years, the values have gone

down and now a litigants can go to any extent to mislead the court.

They have no respect for the truth. The principle has been evolved to

meet the challenges posed by this new breed of litigants. Now 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. The

maxim supressio veri, expression faisi, i.e. suppression of the truth is

equivalent to the expression of falsehood, gets attracted. Its nothing

but degradation of moral values in the society, may be because of our

education system. Now we are more happy to hear anything except

truth; read anything except truth; speak anything except truth and

believe anything except truth. Someone rightly said that `Lies are very

sweet, while truth is bitter, that's why most people prefer telling lies.'
8.
In a recent matter, this Court again came across a litigant

who had tried to overreach the Court by concealing material facts in

Saumya Chaurasia v. Directorate of Enforcement5
. It was a case

where the appellant before this Court had challenged the order

passed by the High Court6 rejecting his bail application. He was

accused of committing various crimes under the
Indian Penal Code

and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002
. His bail

application was rejected by the High Court on 23.06.2023. In the

pleadings before this Court, it was mentioned that the High Court had

committed gross error in not considering the chargesheet dated

08.06.2023 and the cognizance order dated 16.06.2023, which clearly

suggested that there was error apparent on the fact of it. The fact

which was available on record was that an order in the bail application

was reserved by the High Court on 17.04.2023 and pronounced on

23.06.2023. Having some suspicion, this Court directed the appellant

to file an affidavit to clarify the aforesaid position. There was no

specific reply given to the aforesaid query to the Court. Rather vague

statements were made. Considering the facts available, this Court

observed that there was a bold attempt by and on behalf of the

appellant therein to misrepresent the facts for challenging the order
2023 INSC 1073
High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Miscellaneous Crl. Case No.1258/2023
impugned therein, regarding the conduct of the parties and the

counsel, this Court made the following observations:

“14. It cannot be gainsaid that every party
approaching the court seeking justice is expected to
make full and correct disclosure of material facts and
that every advocate being an officer of the court,
though appearing for a particular party, is expected to
assist the court fairly in carrying out its function to
administer the justice. It hardly needs to be
emphasized that a very high standard of
professionalism and legal acumen is expected from
the advocates particularly designated Senior
advocates appearing in the highest court of the
country so that their professionalism may be followed
and emulated by the advocates practicing in the High
Courts and the District Courts. Though it is true that the
advocates would settle the pleadings and argue in the
courts on instructions given by their clients, however
their duty to diligently verify the facts from the record
of the case, using their legal acumen for which they are
engaged, cannot be obliviated.”
(emphasis supplied)

8.1. Finally, this Court dismissed the appeal with costs of

₹1,00,000/-.
9.
In
Pradip Sahu v. The State of Assam7
the accused who

was found to be guilty of concealing material facts from the court and

against him the High Court8 had directed for taking appropriate legal

action, had challenged the order passed by the High Court before this

Court. In the aforesaid case, first bail application filed by the appellant

there was dismissed by the High Court9, thereafter he moved second

bail application before the High Court in which notice was issued on

30.11.2021. During the pendency of the aforesaid application before

the High Court, the appellant therein moved fresh bail application

before the Trial Court on 01.12.2021, which was granted on the same

day. The aforesaid facts came to the notice of the High Court on

08.12.2021 when a report of the Registrar (Judicial) was received, who

was directed to conduct the enquiry in the matter. However, on an

apology tendered by the appellant therein and also considering the

facts as stated that he belonged to Tea Tribe community and his

brother, a cycle mechanic, who was also pursuing the case, did not

appreciate the intricacy of the law. As a result of which, the mistake

occurred. This Court, having regard to the unqualified apology
Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 4876 of 2022, decided by this Court on 24.08.2023
Gauhati High Court
On 11.11.2021
tendered by the appellant therein, had set aside the order passed by

the High Court to file FIR/complaint against the appellant therein.

10. May be in the facts of the aforesaid case, this Court had

accepted unconditional apology tendered by the appellant therein

and the given facts situation accepted his apology but it is established

that there is a consistent effort by the litigants to misrepresent the

Court wherever they can.

11. The prayer in the present appeal is for grant of bail

pending trial. The appellant claimed that he is in custody since

03.02.2022 in connection with crime10 registered under
Section

20(b)(ii)(C)
of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,

1985. The allegation in the FIR is that the appellant and the co-accused

Gangesh Kumar Thakur @ Gangesh Thakur were in exclusive and

conscious possession of 23.8 kg Ganja and were transporting the

same.

12. The appellant and his co-accused Gangesh Kumar Thakur

@ Gangesh Thakur filed an application for release on bail pending

trial before the Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Malkangiri

immediately after their arrest on 03.02.2022. The same was rejected
FIR No. 29 dated 03.02.2022, at P.S. Orkel, District Malkaganj, Odisha
vide order dated 04.02.2022. At that stage even the chargesheet had

not been filed.

12.1 Being aggrieved against the order of rejection of the bail

application by the Sessions Judge, the appellant filed first bail

application11 before High Court. While the same was pending the co-

accused Gangesh Thakur also filed bail application12 before the High

Court. The High Court vide order dated 17.01.2023 allowed the bail

application filed by Gangesh Kumar Thakur @ Gangesh Thakur.

However, the bail application filed by the appellant was dismissed

vide impugned order dated 06.03.2023. Aggrieved against the same,

the appellant filed the SLP13 before this Court. Notice in the same was

issued on 22.09.2023. When the matter was listed on 08.11.2023,

learned counsel for the State sought time to file counter affidavit. On

06.12.2023, the learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that

during the pendency of the present matter before this Court, the High

Court vide order dated 11.10.2023 had granted bail to the appellant.

As he did not have hard copy of the order passed by the High Court,

he placed before us a soft copy of the said order through his mobile

phone. On a reading of the aforesaid order, this Court found that the
BLAPL No. 1855 of 2022
BLAPL NO. 11709 of 2022
Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 12301 of 2023
same neither mentioned the fact that it was the second bail

application14 filed by the appellant nor pendency of the SLP before

this Court, in which notice had already been issued. Taking the matter

seriously and deprecating such a practice this Court passed the

following order on 06.12.2023:

“This petition has been filed assailing the correctness
of order dated 6th March, 2023 passed by the High Court of
Orissa at Cuttack in BLAPL No. 1855 of 2022, ‘Kusha Duruka
Versus State of Odisha’ whereby the prayer for bail was
rejected. Notice was issued by this Court on 22nd September,
2023.

Today the learned counsel for the petitioner informs
this Court that during the pendency of this petition, the High
Court has granted bail to the petitioner on 11th October,
2023. He has placed before us a soft copy of the said order
through his mobile, according to which BLAPL No. 10860 of
2023 was allowed apparently on the ground of parity
extended to another co-accused.

From reading of the said order, we find that it neither
mentions that it was the second bail application filed by the
petitioner before the High Court nor does it reflects any
reference to the petition pending before this Court in which
notice had already been issued in September, 2023.
BLAPL No. 10860 of 2023
We seriously deprecate such practice by the litigant
and the counsel.

We accordingly, direct that original record of the said
bail application, allowed by the High Court on 11th October,
2023, be called for forthwith.

We further direct that this order be communicated to
the Hon’ble Chief Justice as also the Registrar of the High
Court of Orissa forthwith (today itself) and the
aforementioned file of BLAPL No. 10860 of 2023 titled ‘Kusha
Duruka Versus Versus State of Odisha’ be immediately
sealed and thereafter be forwarded to this Court.

We also request the Hon’ble the Chief Justice to obtain
comments of the learned Judge as to whether he was
apprised of the aforesaid two facts as recorded earlier in this
order regarding the bail application being the second bail
application and the secondly the pendency of the present
petition.

The State of Odisha will also file its comments as to
whether the public prosecutor appearing for the State of
Odisha pointed out such facts or not.

The report shall be submitted by the Secretary,
Department of Law and Justice of the State of Odisha as also
by the Joint Secretary or the Additional Secretary (Law)
attached to the High Court.

List this matter again on 13th December, 2023.”
13. In terms of the aforesaid order, this Court received the

original record pertaining to second bail application filed by the

appellant in which he was granted bail by the High Court vide order

dated 11.10.2023; a report dated 08.12.2023 from the High Court along

with a note from the Hon’ble Judge who had dealt with the bail

application filed by the appellant and passed the order on 11.10.2023;

affidavit of Special Secretary, Home Department, Government of

Odisha dated 11.12.2023 and affidavit and report of Principal

Secretary, Law Department, Government of Odisha dated 12.12.2023.

14. Before we deal with the matter, we deem it appropriate to

note down the dates and events in a tabular form.

DATE EVENTS
03.02.2022 FIR No.29 dated 03.02.2022 was registered at
Police Station Orkel, District Malkangiri,
Odisha, under
Section 20(b)(ii)(C)
of the
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
Act, 1985.

03.02.2022 The appellant as well as co-accused were
arrested.

04.02.2022 The first bail application filed by the appellant
as well as the co-accused was rejected by the
Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Malkangiri
(Special G.R. Case No.38/2022).
The appellant approached the High Court for
grant of bail by filing bail application bearing
BLAPL No. 1855 of 2022.

The co-accused Gangesh Kumar Thakur @
Gangesh Thakur approached the High Court for
grant of bail by filing bail application bearing
BLAPL No.11709 of 2022.

As is evident from the records available before
this Court, bail application filed by the appellant
was assigned to Judge ‘A’15.

During the pendency of the bail application
filed by the appellant, the bail application filed
by the co-accused Gangesh Kumar Thakur was
listed before Judge ‘B’9.

17.01.2023 The bail application filed by the co-accused
Gangesh Kumar Thakur @ Gangesh Thakur was
allowed by Judge ‘B’; The order does not
suggest that the State Counsel had pointed
before the court that there is another bail
application filed by the co-accused (the
appellant) pending consideration before the
court.

06.03.2023 The bail application filed by the appellant was
rejected by Judge ‘A’; the High Court had
specifically recorded in the order that the co-
accused Gangesh Kumar Thakur @ Gangesh
We are consciously not mentioning the name of the Hon’ble Judge
Thakur had been released vide order dated
17.01.2023.

21.07.2023 Aggrieved against the order rejecting the bail
application filed by the appellant, SLP was filed
before this Court.

15.09.2023 During the pendency of the matter before this
Court, second bail application filed by the
appellant was rejected by the Sessions Judge-
cum-Special Judge, Malkangiri.

The argument raised by the appellant that the
co-accused has already been granted the bail,
is noticed in the order. It does not record the
fact that a petition filed by the appellant seeking
bail is pending before this Court.

21.09.2023 While the matter was pending before this Court,
the appellant filed second bail application
before the High Court and the same was not
disclosed before this Court.

22.09.2023 Notice in the SLP was issued to the respondent.
11.10.2023 During pendency of the matter before this Court
Judge ‘B’ granted bail to the appellant.

08.11.2023 Learned counsel for the State appeared and
sought time for filing counter affidavit to the SLP.
Though the High Court had already granted bail
to the appellant but still it was not pointed out
when the matter was taken up by this Court.

06.12.2023 Learned counsel for the appellant pointed out
before this Court that the appellant had already
been released by the High Court. This Court
called for explanation and the record of the case
from the High Court.

15. In the Affidavit dated 11.12.2023 filed by the Principal

Secretary, Law Department, Govt. of Odisha, while narrating the facts

of the case, it was stated that the learned counsel appearing for the

State in the High Court did not have the knowledge of the fact that the

first bail application filed by the appellant was rejected on 06.03.2023

by the High Court and also regarding filing of the SLP by the petitioner

before this Court.

15.1 The contents of para of the aforesaid affidavit are extracted

below:

“It is submitted that the State Counsel before the
Hon’ble High Court of Orissa was not aware of the fact
that, earlier BLAPL No.1855/2022 was rejected vide
order dated 06.03.2023 as well as the fact of filing of
S.L.P.(Crl.)No.12301/2023. A copy of report of the
State Counsel is as ANNEXURE-A”

15.2 Along with the affidavit a report from the State Counsel was

also annexed. It was mentioned therein that in second bail application

though the appellant had disclosed about filing of his first bail
application, he had not disclosed any fact regarding pendency of the

SLP before this Court. It was further mentioned that in the list of dates

the factum of rejection of earlier bail application or filing of the SLP

was not mentioned. Even at the time of hearing this fact was not

disclosed. Learned State Counsel did not have any instructions from

the Inspector Incharge regarding pendency of the present petition

before this Court.

15.3 To similar effect is the affidavit filed by the Special

Secretary, Home Department, Govt. of Odisha.

16. In compliance to the order dated 06.12.2023 passed by this

Court, a report has been received from the High Court. The comments

of Judge ‘B’, as requested, were annexed with the report and original

file of second bail application of appellant was also received from the

High Court. It is mentioned therein that at the time of hearing of the

second bail application, the court was not apprised of the factum of

pendency of the SLP before this Court, in which notice had already

been issued on 22.09.2023.

16.1 A copy of Standing Order No.2 of 2023, in partial

modification of earlier Standing Order No.1 of 2020 issued by the High

Court on 21.05.2023, was annexed with the report. It was issued in

pursuance to the observation made by this Court in
Pradhani Jani v.
The State of Odisha16
. The Standing Order was issued with reference

to the listing of the bail applications under
Sections 438
and
Cr.P.C. Para 2 of the Standing Order with reference to the bail

applications under
Section 439
Cr.P.C. is extracted below:

“2. The subsequent bail applications under

section 439
Cr.P.C. including applications for
interim bail shall be listed before the Hon'ble Judge
who, at the earliest, decided any of the earlier bail
applications under
section 439
Cr.P.C. arising out of
the same FIR (decided on merit or disposed of as
withdrawn/not pressed). In the event the Hon'ble
Judge is not available on account of superannuation,
transfer etc. or recuses, the said application shall be
listed before the Hon'ble Judge who next disposed
of any of those bail applications, and so on. If none
of the Hon'ble Judges who decided the earlier bail
applications is available, the application shall be
listed before the regular Bench as per roster.”

17. In substance, it was directed that the Stamp Reporting

Section will verify in case any bail application arising out of the same

FIR has been disposed of earlier. The Stamp Reporting Section shall

furnish complete details. The subsequent bail applications are to be

listed before the same Judge. However, in case of non-availability or
Criminal Appeal No.1503/2023 decided on 15.05.2023
superannuation of the that Judge, alternate system has been provided.

It is further directed that while listing the subsequent bail application,

final order(s) of earlier bail application(s) arising out of the same FIR

shall be tagged. To put the record straight, the order passed by this

Court in Pradhani Jani’s case (supra) is extracted hereinbelow:

“3. The perusal of the paper books would
reveal that various applications filed by various
accused have been entertained by different learned
Single Judges of the same High Court. In many of the
High Courts, the practice followed is that the
applications arising out of the same FIR should be
placed before one Judge. However, it appears that it is
not the practice in Orissa High Court. In the present
case, we have come across orders passed by at least
three different Judges in the applications of various
accused arising out of same FIR.

4. Such a practice leads to anomalous
situation. Certain accused are granted bail whereas
certain accused for the very same crime having similar
role are refused bail.

5. We, therefore, quash and set aside the
impugned order dated 31.01.2023 and remand the
matter back to the High Court. The High Court is
requested to consider the effect of the orders passed by
the other coordinate Benches and pass orders afresh.
The same shall be done within a period of one month
from today.

6. The Registrar (Judicial) of the Registry of this
Court is directed to forward a copy of this order to the
Registrar General of the Orissa High Court, who is
requested to take note of the aforesaid and consider
passing appropriate order so that contrary orders in the
same crime are avoided.”

18. A perusal of the paper book in second bail application

shows that there is a report annexed by the Registry in the matter. It

mentioned about the earlier two bail applications filed in the FIR in-

question. The first bail application filed by the appellant was disposed

of on 06.03.2023. Bail application filed by the co-accused Gangesh

Kumar Thakur was disposed of on 17.01.2023. The next one was the

second bail application filed by the appellant. Though Standing Order

No.2 of 2023 directed the Registry to annex all the orders passed in

the earlier bail applications by different accused in the same FIR,

however, the order passed by the High Court in the case of the

appellant, rejecting his earlier bail application, does not form part of

the bail application before the High Court. Only the order dated

17.01.2023 passed in the bail application, filed by the co-accused

Gangesh Kumar Thakur was annexed. Further, in the list of dates and

events, 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. Though, just below the name of the parties, the appellant had

mentioned the number of earlier bail application filed by him. Even

in the body of the bail application, the appellant has conspicuously

remained silent about the dismissal of his earlier bail application by

the High Court and filing of the SLP before 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.

The 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.

19. It is further evident from the order dated 17.01.2023 vide

which bail application, BLAPL NO.11709 of 2022 of the co-accused

Gangesh Kumar Thakur was allowed by the High Court by Judge ‘B’.

Learned State Counsel did not point out the factum of pendency of

another bail application filed by the co-accused arising out of the same

FIR at that stage. The concerned investigating officer must be aware

of this fact but had not pointed out the same before the court.
20. In our opinion, 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’s case (supra) 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.

21. Our suggestions are with a view to streamline the

proceedings and avoid anomalies with reference to the bail

applications being filed in the cases pending trial and even for

suspension of sentence.

22. Though considering the conduct of the petitioner, one of

the option 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.

23. The present appeal is, accordingly, dismissed as

infructuous. However, still we deem it appropriate to burden the

appellant with a token cost of ₹10,000/-, which shall be deposited by
him with Mediation and Conciliation Centre, attached to Orissa High

Court, within a period of eight weeks from today. Within two weeks

thereafter, proof of deposit be furnished in this Court.

24. A copy of the order be sent to the Registrars General of all

the High Courts to be placed before the Chief Justices for correction

of the system, wherever required, as this Court comes across similar

issues from different High Courts.

25. The original record received from the High Court be sent

back.

…..………………….…..J
(VIKRAM NATH)

…………………………..J
(RAJESH BINDAL)

New Delhi
January 19, 2024.

26