CRM-M/47220/2026 of KAUSHALYA RANI Vs UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE OFFICE OF NARCOTICS BUREAU on 3 September 2026

1. has been arrest bail (hereinaft registered Psychotro Chandiga

2. lis in the p

(i) grams of During th have mad

47220-2026 (O&M)

N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ CHANDIGA CHANDIGA CHANDIGA CHANDIGA

a Rani

V/s India thr. the office of Narcotics

ecision: ecision: ecision: ecision: 03.09.2026 03.09.2026 03.09.2026 03.09.2026 Uploading : 0 Uploading : 0 Uploading : 0 Uploading : 07.09.2026 .09.2026 .09.2026 .09.2026 : : : : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SU HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SU HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SU HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SU Mr. Saksham Dudeja, Advoc Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Special Pu Ms. Indu Bala Sharma, Advo Mr. Amrit Kashyap, Advocat ***** T GOEL T GOEL T GOEL T GOEL, J. , J. , J. , J. Present petition (hereinafter filed on behalf of the petitioner l under Section 482 of Bharatiy ter to be referred as ‘BNSS’) in d under Sections 8, 21 and opic Substances Act, 1985, wi arh/Sahnewal, Ludhiana. Shorn of non-essential detail petition in hand is adumbrated th The genesis of the case lies heroin stated to be effected fr he course of investigation, co-acc de a disclosure statement im

JAB AND HARYANA AT JAB AND HARYANA AT JAB AND HARYANA AT JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH ARH ARH ARH

CRM CRM CRM CRM-36362 36362 36362 36362-2026 in/& 2026 in/& 2026 in/& 2026 in/& CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-47220

47220-2026

2026 (O&M (O&M (O&M (O&M

....Petitioner s Control Bureau

....Respondent UMEET GOEL UMEET GOEL UMEET GOEL UMEET GOEL cate for the petitioner. ublic Prosecutor (NCB) with ocate & te for the respondent –NCB. referred to as ‘petition in han r seeking grant of anticipatory/p ya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20 n Crime No. 27 dated 23.12.20 29 of the Narcotic Drugs a th the Narcotics Control Bure s, the relevant factual milieu of hus: in the alleged recovery of 117 rom co-accused –– Manjeet Ka cused –– Manjeet Kaur is stated mplicating the petitioner (herei

M) M) M) M)

nd’) pre-

25, and eau, the .61 aur. d to in), MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.07 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-4 alleging t prosecutio material a accused.

(ii) learned Sp (herein) h

(iii) in hand, h

(iv) counsel ap that the p she is invo

47220-2026 (O&M)

that the contraband in question on has also relied upon the cal allegedly indicating contact be Upon rejection of her plea fo pecial Judge, Ludhiana, vide ord has approached this Court by way The petitioner, while describ has specifically stated as under: “12. That the petitioner is first registered against him under eith under any other section of Indian whole life is at stake due to the all As per of Instructions regarding N

(a) Whether the Petitioner is/was against him anywhere in India? proceedings in the case(s). – No

(b) If the petitioner is on bai sentence awarded to him in any o mention is required to be made3.

(c) Number and title of an Petitioner in the Court where su mentioned – No.

(d) Whether he has ever been dec not? - No”

At the time of preliminary ppearing for the respondent - N petitioner had not disclosed his olved in other FIR(s), whereupon

“At this juncture, learned instructions, submits that the pet other cases, but he has not disclos had been procured from her. T ll detail records (CDR) and oth etween the petitioner and the c for grant of anticipatory bail by der dated 01.06.2026, the petition y of the petition in hand. bing her antecedents in the petiti t time offender and there is no other c ther the provisions of the NDPS Act n Penal Code expect the present one. lleged false implication. NDPS Act s accused in any other case(s) registe ? IN case it is so, update status of il in any case(s) pending against him other case(s) has been suspended spec

– No any other pending case(s) against uch a case/petition is moved, should clared proclaimed offender in any case y hearing on 24.08.2026, learn NCB had raised a specific objecti complete antecedents inasmuch n the following order was passed d Special Public Prosecutor (NCB), etitioner (herein) is involved in multi sed them.

The her co- the ner tion case t or His ered f the m or cific the d be e or ned ion h as d: on tiple MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.07 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-4

(v) 36815-20 The said thus:

(vi) way of m she has di petitioner Rival sub Rival sub Rival sub Rival sub

3. objection regard to the same learned c

47220-2026 (O&M)

Respondent – NCB is antecedents of the petitioner.

List on 03.09.2026.

Be taken up in the urgent c The respondent-NCB has m

26) seeking to place on record reply, while delineating the ant “2. That the petitioner is a ha been already registered against th as under:

S.No. Particulars

FIR No.365/2017 NDPS A

FIR No.83/2023 NDPS A

FIR No.64/2017 NDPS A

FIR No.07/2025 P.S. City

The petitioner has now sough miscellaneous application bearin isclosed being involved in other It is in the aforesaid factua r has approached this Court by w missions missions missions missions Learned counsel for the pe raised by learned counsel for th non-disclosure of the antecedent was neither intentional nor with counsel, the petitioner did not directed to file reply; especially q cause list. ” moved an application (No.CR d its reply to the petition in han tecedents of the petitioner, refle abitual offender and number of cases h he petitioner. The details of the same Act P.S. Sidhuwa Bet Act P.S. Sadar Jagraon Act P.S. Sidhuwa Bet y Jagraon ht to amend the petition in hand ng No. CRM-36362-2026 where cases/FIR(s). al milieu of the case in hand, way of the petition in hand. etitioner, while responding to he NCB on the preceding date w ts of the petitioner, has iterated t h any oblique motive. According deliberately seek to mislead t

qua M- and. ects had e are d by eby the the with hat g to this MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.07 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-4 Court or Immediat prelimina amendme been regis subsequen and reflec any mater 3.1 petitioner the FIR in present a recovery surfaced o statement the allege accused – regular b Learned c challan ha so, no fur contraban custodial of the pet the proces her behind

47220-2026 (O&M)

to derive any undue advantage tely upon the objection being rais ary stage, the petitioner has filed ent of the petition in hand and ha stered against the petitioner. It h nt disclosure, by itself, demonstr cts that there was no intention o rial fact from this Court. As regard the merits of th r has contended that the petition n question as she was neither n at the place of recovery. It has whatsoever has been effected only during the course of inves t of the co-accused – Manjeet K ed recovery of 117.61 grams of –– Manjeet Kaur, who has alrea ail by the learned Special Co counsel has also contended that as been presented before the com rther recovery is likely to be effe nd has already been recovered f interrogation of the petitioner is tition in hand. Moreover, the pet ss of law and, thus, no useful pu d the bars.

by withholding any material fa sed by the respondent - NCB at an appropriate application seeki as disclosed the other FIR(s) havi has been further contended that rates the bona fide of the petition n part of the petitioner to suppr he case, learned counsel for ner has been falsely implicated in nominated in the FIR nor was s s been further contended that from the petitioner and her na stigation on the basis of disclosu Kaur. According to learned couns heroin has been effected from c ady been granted the concession ourt vide order dated 04.02.20 upon completion of investigati mpetent Court of jurisdiction. Mo ected particularly when the alleg from the co-accused and, thus, s not required in the factual mil titioner has no intention of evadi urpose would be served by sendi

act. the ing ing the ner ess the nto she no me ure sel, co- n of

26. on, ore ged the lieu ing ing MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.07 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-4

bail is ent

4. NCB has approache the respon not a first facie refle learned co serious in weighing learned co investigat been furt showing c require p Furthermo ascertain persons in supply. O hand is pr

5. gone throu Prime Issu Prime Issu Prime Issu Prime Issu

47220-2026 (O&M)

On the strength of these sub treated for. In oppugnation, learned coun opposed the petition in hand by ed this Court with clean hands. R ndent-NCB, learned counsel ha t time offender as she is involv ect her continued involvement ounsel has contended that the al n nature and relate to recovery 117.61 grams from co-accus ounsel, name of the petitioner tion on the basis of the disclosu ther contended that the prosec contact between the petitioner an proper investigation and cannot ore, the custodial interrogation the source of procurement o nvolved in the narcotics networ On the strength of these submissio rayed for. I have heard the learned cou ugh the available record of the c ue ue ue ue bmissions, the grant of anticipato nsel appearing for the responden y arguing that the petitioner has n Referring to reply filed on behalf s pointed out that the petitioner ved in 04 other cases which pri in criminal activities. On mer llegations against the petitioner of commercial quantity of hero sed Manjeet Kaur. According has surfaced during the course ure made by the co-accused. It h cution has relied upon the CD nd the other accused persons wh t be brushed aside at this sta of the petitioner is necessary of the contraband, identify oth rk and unearth the entire chain ons, the dismissal of the petition unsel for the rival parties and ha case.

ory nt – not f of r is ima rits, are oin to of has DRs ich age. to her of n in ave MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.07 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-4

6. whether t bail in the an applica dismissed anteceden matrix or Analysis ( Analysis ( Analysis ( Analysis (

7. BNSS (er equitable arrest and judicial d applicant/ equitable is bound disclosure utmost g foundatio our crimi adjudicati parties re convenien selective party invo

47220-2026 (O&M)

The issue that arises for cons the petitioner ought to be grant e factual milieu of the petition in The seminal legal question th ation/petition seeking anticipator d on the sole ground of de nts/previous criminal involvemen underlying merits of the case? (re: law) (re: law) (re: law) (re: law) The jurisdiction to grant an rstwhile Section 438 Cr.P.C.) is dispensation. Designed as a bu d police highhandedness, pre-a discretion rather than statuto /petitioner seeking anticipatory jurisdiction of the court to seek to be accompanied by uncom e in view of the doctrine of Uber ood faith; which is not a m nal pillar upon which extraordi inal justice system purports to ion, it cannot be reduced to a pri etain the prerogative to disc nce. Judicial discretion is not a disclosures, nor is the court a oking the extraordinary statutor sideration before this Court is as ted the concession of anticipato n hand. hat arises for cogitation is wheth ry bail can, and indeed ought to eliberate suppression of crimi nts, without adverting to the fact nticipatory bail under Section 4 an extraordinary discretionary an uffer against unnecessary/malicio arrest protection rests entirely ory entitlement. Because a b y bail invokes the extraordina k a pre-emptive protection, the p mpromising candor and compl errima Fides, i.e. the requirement mere rhetorical ornament, but inary judicial remedies rest. Wh follow the adversarial model ivate contractual negotiation wh close or conceal facts at th a commodity to be bartered up stage for legal sleight of hand. ry concession of pre-arrest libe

s to ory her be, nal ual nd, ous on bail ary plea lete t of the hile of ere heir pon . A erty MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.07 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-4 owes a s strikes at suppressio to the sug a litigant judicial sc merits, lea 7.1 remedies by the Ho Ltd. & O Ltd. & O Ltd. & O Ltd. & O remedy is a court m If an app mislead th and refuse is reprodu

47220-2026 (O&M)

olemn duty of unreserved cand the very root of the adjudicat io veri, suggestio falsi, i.e. the su ggestion of a falsehood, applies w attempts to play "hide and see crutiny, the court is fully empo aving the suitor stranded at the th The principle governing the s on account of material suppres on’ble Supreme Court in K.D. S K.D. S K.D. S K.D. S Ors. [(2008) 12 SCC 481] Ors. [(2008) 12 SCC 481] Ors. [(2008) 12 SCC 481] Ors. [(2008) 12 SCC 481], wher s not a matter of course and whi must bear in mind the conduct of plicant makes a false statemen he Bench, the court may dismis e to enter into the merits. The re uced herein: “26. A prerogative remedy is no extraordinary power a Writ Co conduct of the party who invok applicant makes a false statement to mislead the Court, the Court alone and may refuse to enter int will not listen to your application rule has been evolved in larger litigants from abusing the process

xxx

xxx

28. The above principles have bee per settled law, the party who in this Court under Article 32 or of dor to the Court; failure where tory process. The timeless max uppression of the truth is equival with uncompromising force. Wh ek" or "pick and choose" facts owered to refuse to enter upon hreshold of equity. summary rejection of discretiona ssion was authoritatively discuss Sharma v. Steel Aut Sharma v. Steel Aut Sharma v. Steel Aut Sharma v. Steel Authority of In hority of In hority of In hority of In rein it was held that a prerogat ile exercising extraordinary pow f the party invoking its jurisdicti nt or suppresses material facts ss the action on that ground alo elevant part of K.D. Sharma K.D. Sharma K.D. Sharma K.D. Sharma (sup ot a matter of course. While exercis ourt would certainly bear in mind kes the jurisdiction of the Court. If nt or suppresses material fact or attem may dismiss the action on that grou nto the merits of the case by stating " on because of what you have done". T er public interest to deter unscrupul s of Court by deceiving it. x

xxx en accepted in our legal system also. invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction f a High Court under Article 226 of

eof xim ent ere for the ary sed ndia ndia ndia ndia ive wer, on. to one pra) sing the f the mpts ound "We The lous As n of f the MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.07 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-4

of writ j applies w 7.2 involveme procedura factor; wh criminal a factor for evidence, anteceden exercise o underscor Singh @ Singh @ Singh @ Singh @ Court cla absolute constitute impact an (supra) re

47220-2026 (O&M)

Constitution is supposed to be tru all material facts without any rese cannot be allowed to play 'hide an he likes to disclose and to sup (conceal) other facts. The very disclosure of true and complete suppressed or distorted, the very would become impossible. The having a bearing on the relief so because, "the Court knows law bu Albeit, the dicta in KD Shar KD Shar KD Shar KD Shar urisdiction under Article 226/3 ith equal rigor to anticipatory ba Pertinently, criminal ments of a bail applicant/petitione al formality; it constitutes one o hile adjudicating a plea for bail. antecedents/previous criminal in r assessing an applicant’s prop or influence witnesses. The nts/previous criminal involveme of judicial discretion in a petit red in catena of binding preceden @ Lalla Babu & Anr. [(2012) 9 @ Lalla Babu & Anr. [(2012) 9 @ Lalla Babu & Anr. [(2012) 9 @ Lalla Babu & Anr. [(2012) 9 arified that while a history-shee rule, criminal antecedents/p e a vital factor that cannot be nd the gravity of the crime. The ead thus:

uthful, frank and open. He must discl ervation even if they are against him. and seek' or to 'pick and choose' the fa uppress (keep back) or not to discl y basis of the writ jurisdiction rests te (correct) facts. If material facts functioning of Writ Courts and exerc e petitioner must disclose all the fa ought without any qualification. This ut not facts.” rma rma rma rma (supra) arose within the rea 32 of the Constitution, the ra ail proceedings also. antecedents/previous crimi er are not collateral details or m f the major factors, if not the on While considering bail petition( nvolvements serve as an imperat pensity to reoffend, tamper w indispensable nature of crimi ments, as a primary factor in tion for bail, has been repeated nts. In Ash Mohammad v. Shiv R Ash Mohammad v. Shiv R Ash Mohammad v. Shiv R Ash Mohammad v. Shiv R 9 SCC 446] 9 SCC 446] 9 SCC 446] 9 SCC 446], the Hon’ble Supre eter is not disentitled to bail as /previous criminal involveme ignored when evaluating socie e relevant part of Ash Mohamm Ash Mohamm Ash Mohamm Ash Mohamm

lose He facts lose s in are rcise facts is is alm atio inal ere nly

(s) , ive with inal the dly Raj Raj Raj Raj me an ents etal mad mad mad mad MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.07 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-4 7.3 [(2016) 1 [(2016) 1 [(2016) 1 [(2016) 1 specifical criminal r exercise o of Neeru Y Neeru Y Neeru Y Neeru Y 7.4 Court in drawing u Narasimh Narasimh Narasimh Narasimh

47220-2026 (O&M)

“30. Xxx xxx The role of note that a history-sheeter has a has ignored the criminal anteced with the High Court is that th custody. That may be one of the the sole factor in every case. It dep manner in which it is committed hasten to add that when we state may not be understood to have sa to bail. But, it is a significant fac to the nature of crime in respect o

xxx

xxx Furthermore, in Neeru Yada Neeru Yadav Neeru Yada Neeru Yadav 15 SCC 422] 15 SCC 422] 15 SCC 422] 15 SCC 422], the Hon’ble Supre ly because the High Court had record of the accused, holding th of discretion whimsical, arbitrary Yadav Yadav Yadav Yadav (supra) read thus: “15. This being the position of l High Court has totally ignored t What has weighed with the Hi history- sheeter involved in th reproduced hereinabove, are not retained in custody, but the crime by no stretch of imagination, can create a thunder and lightening h rain in an analytical mind. The la admitting these kind of accused p emphasis is on exercise of discre manner.” Furthermore, a three-Judge Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kum Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kum Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kum Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kum upon the seminal observations hulu v. Public Prosecutor [(1978) hulu v. Public Prosecutor [(1978) hulu v. Public Prosecutor [(1978) hulu v. Public Prosecutor [(1978)

f the accused is clearly stated. It is ap recorded past. The High Court, in to dents of the accused. What has weigh he accused had spent seven months factors but that cannot be the whole epends upon the nature of the offence, d and its impact on the society. We m e that the accused is a history-sheeter aid that a history-sheeter is never entit ctor to be taken note of regard being h of which he has been booked. xxx” av v. av v. av v. av v. State of Uttar Pradesh & A State of Uttar Pradesh & A State of Uttar Pradesh & A State of Uttar Pradesh & A eme Court set aside a grant of b d completely ignored the heino hat ignoring antecedents renders y, and “deviant.” The relevant p law, it is clear as cloudless sky that the criminal antecedents of the accus High Court is the doctrine of parity. the nature of crimes which we h t minor offences so that he is not to es are of heinous nature and such crim an be regarded as jejune. Such cases having the effect potentiality of torren aw expects the judiciary to be alert wh persons to be at large and, therefore, etion judiciously and not in a whims Bench of the Hon’ble Supre mar & Anr. [(20 mar & Anr. [(20 mar & Anr. [(20 mar & Anr. [(2022) 4 SCC 49

22) 4 SCC 49

22) 4 SCC 49

22) 4 SCC 49 of Krishna Iyer, J. in Gudika Gudika Gudika Gudika

8) 1 SCC 240] ) 1 SCC 240]

8) 1 SCC 240] ) 1 SCC 240], reaffirmed that wh

pt to toto, ghed s in and the may r we itled had Anr. Anr. Anr. Anr. bail ous the part the sed.

y. A have o be mes, s do ntial while the sical me

97], anti anti anti anti hile MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.07 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-4 personal rationally exploiting part of Br Br Br Br

8. time and previous Munnesh Munnesh Munnesh Munnesh 03.04.202

47220-2026 (O&M)

liberty under Article 21 is y inquire into antecedents to g judicial leniency to inflict furth rijmani Devi rijmani Devi rijmani Devi rijmani Devi (supra) reads thus: “21. Before proceeding furthe judgments of this Court in the m under: a) In Gudikanti Narasimhu elaborating on the content and m of India, has also elaborated the granting bail which are extracted

“7. It is thus obvious that t and the nature of the evide which the party may be confirmed, also bears upon

8. Another relevant facto would be thwarted by him the Court to be freed for th

9. Thus the legal princ considering the likeliho witnesses for the prosecut justice. It is not only trad enquire into the anteceden find whether he has a ba suggests that he is likely t In regard to habituals, it thoughtless bail order h opportunity to inflict fu defendant, is therefore not

xxx

xxx Relying upon these princip again directed for mandatory d criminal involvements across a h v. State of Uttar Pradesh h v. State of Uttar Pradesh h v. State of Uttar Pradesh h v. State of Uttar Pradesh [SLP 25], the Hon’ble Supreme Court invaluable, bail discretion m prevent habitual offenders fro her crimes on society. The relev her, it would be useful to refer to matter of granting bail to an accused hulu (supra), Krishna Iyer, J., wh meaning of Article 21 of the Constitut factors that have to be considered wh as under: the nature of the charge is the vital fac dence also is pertinent. The punishmen be liable, if convicted or conviction on the issue. or is as to whether the course of just m who seeks the benignant jurisdiction he time being. ciples and practice validate the Co ood of the applicant interfering w tion or otherwise polluting the process aditional but rational, in this context, nts of a man who is applying for bai bad record - particularly a record wh to commit serious offences while on b t is part of criminological history tha has enabled the bailee to exploit urther about the criminal record o t an exercise in irrelevance.

x

xxx” ples, Hon’ble Supreme Court h disclosure of criminal anteceden all stages of bail adjudication. (Crl.) No. 1400/2025, Order da took stern note of a growing tre

must om ant the d as while ution while actor nt to n is stice n of ourt with ss of t, to il to hich bail. hat a the of a has nts/ In ted end MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.07 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-4 where in involveme The Apex must man possess c cases, de independe as follows

47220-2026 (O&M)

dividuals seeking bail or prot ent in other criminal cases, effe x Court categorically directed th ndatorily disclose in the Synop clean antecedents and in case th claring that any incorrect disc ent ground for dismissal. The re s: “11. However, before parting, w aspect. A growing trend is being Court the concession of bail or c disclosing in the special leave criminal cases. In such cases wh prima facie satisfaction that l progress in the trial is invading th offences for which the FIR has be are issued and only thereafter, being provided in the counte respondents-States, as in the pre being the apex court of the count has shown leniency in the past b affairs is not allowed to continue f

12. We, accordingly, direct t approaches this Court with a challenging orders passed by th prayers under Sections 438/439 o or under Sections 482/483, Bh mandatorily disclose in the 'SYN antecedents or if he has knowled case, he shall clearly indicate th proceedings, arising out of such c be found to be incorrect subseque ground for dismissal of the specia tection from arrest omitted th ectively taking the court for a ri hat every individual approaching psis of their petition whether th hey do not, specify their pendi closure would itself constitute elevant part of Munnesh Munnesh Munnesh Munnesh (supra) we consider it necessary to dwell on noticed of individuals, seeking from t concession of protection from arrest, e petitions their involvement in ot here involvement is not disclosed, o long incarceration without reasona the right to life of the accused or that een registered are not too serious, noti information of criminal antecedents er affidavits filed by the respect esent case. The result is that this Co ntry, is being taken for a ride. This Co but we think it is time that such state further. that henceforth each individual w a Special Leave Petition (Crimin he high courts/sessions courts declin of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19 haratiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita sh NOPSIS' that either he is a man of cl edge of his involvement in any crimi he same together with the stage that case, have reached. Should the disclos ently, that itself could be considered a al leave petition.”

heir ide. g it hey ing an ) is one this not ther on a able t the tices ts is ctive ourt, Court e of who inal) ning shall lean minal the sure as a MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.07 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-4 8.1 in Firoj @ Firoj @ Firoj @ Firoj @ dismissed petitioner subsequen The relev 8.2 Uttar Prad Uttar Prad Uttar Prad Uttar Prad Court em candid di and coerc non-disclo relevant p

47220-2026 (O&M)

Pertinently, reaffirming this s @ Farhu v. State of Rajastha @ Farhu v. State of Rajastha @ Farhu v. State of Rajastha @ Farhu v. State of Rajastha d a bail petition without delving r had asserted a clean record des ntly exposed by the counter-affid ant part of Firoj @ Farhu Firoj @ Farhu Firoj @ Farhu Firoj @ Farhu (supra) “2. Failure to disclose past ante about the criminal cases pendi ground, in itself, to reject the pra such relevant information would a This position was further fo adesh & Ors. [2026 AIR SC 100 adesh & Ors. [2026 AIR SC 100 adesh & Ors. [2026 AIR SC 100 adesh & Ors. [2026 AIR SC 100 mphasized that applicants are und sclosure, inter alia, of criminal cive processes such as non-baila osure strikes at the very root of c part of Zeba Khan Zeba Khan Zeba Khan Zeba Khan (supra) reads t “42. It has been consistently emp applicant seeking bail is under complete and candid disclosure bearing on the exercise of j concealment or selective disclosu abuse of the process of law administration of criminal justice.

47. As repeatedly observed by th at multiple stages - from the trial this Court - where courts are ofte on incomplete or selectively prese aspects such as criminal anteced custody, compliance with constitu progress of trial may result i stance, the Hon’ble Supreme Co an an an an, , , , 2025 Law Finder (SC) 66 2025 Law Finder (SC) 668 2025 Law Finder (SC) 66 2025 Law Finder (SC) 668 into the merits, strictly because pite having multiple pending ca davit filed by the State/prosecuti ) reads thus: tecedents or withholding of informat ing against the petitioner/accused i rayer for grant of bail, as withholding amount to abuse of process.” ortified in Zeba Khan v. State Zeba Khan v. State Zeba Khan v. State Zeba Khan v. State

06], wherein the Hon’ble Supre der a solemn obligation to mak antecedents, prior bail rejectio able warrants or proclamations, criminal justice administration. T thus: phasised by this Court that an accused r a solemn obligation to make a f e of all material facts having a dir judicial discretion. Any suppressi ure of such material facts amounts to and strikes at the very root of e. his Court, bail applications are examin l Court to the High Court and ultimat en constrained to take a prima facie v ented records. Non-disclosure of mate edents, prior bail rejections, duration tutional and statutory safeguards, and in the unwarranted grant of bail,

ourt

689, the ses on. ation is a g of e of e of e of e of me e a ons, as The d or fair, irect sion, o an the ined ately view erial n of d the or MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.07 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-4

9. Court Ru dictates th applicant Supreme involved i thereof. R

10. conceals involveme cause of j his/her p favourabl attempting deception justice at criminal standi to b a dishone

47220-2026 (O&M)

conversely, the prolonged inca substantial custody having already Moreover, Rule 5 of Chapte les and Orders of the Punjab a hat in every bail application pre shall state whether a similar app Court, and shall mandatorily me in any other criminal case, along Rule 5 (supra) reads thus: “5. Bail applications “5. Bail applications “5. Bail applications “5. Bail applications.-In ev High Court the petitioner shall sta not been made to the Supreme C thereof. The petitioner/applicant s involved in any other criminal decisions thereof. An application shall be placed before the bench w Ergo, an application/petition or misrepresents criminal ments, seeks to misdirect the asses justice. By presenting a sanitize past, the bail applicant/petitio e judicial assessment out of g to turn the court’s equitable

n. A bail applicant/petitioner who its source, by putting up false/ antecedents/ previous criminal be heard on merits, as no right to st foundation, and the court mus arceration of accused persons desp dy been undergone.” er 1-A(b), Volume-V of the Hi and Haryana High Court explici esented before the High Court, plication has been made before ention whether he or she is or w g with full particulars and decisio every application for bail presented to ate whether similar application has or Court, and if made shall state the re shall also mention whether he/she is/w al case or not. If yes, particulars n which does not contain this informat with the necessary information.” n for grant of bail, that deliberat antecedents/ previous crimi ssment of the court and subvert ed (or less aggravating) version oner attempts to manufacture f an unlawful misrepresentati e discretion into an instrument o deliberately poisons the stream /misleading statement as to his/h l involvements, forfeits the loc o discretionary relief can arise fro st shut its doors in limine.

spite igh itly the the was ons o the has esult /was and ation ely inal the n of e a on, of m of her ocus om MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.07 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-4

11. correct cr significan bail, whe 439 CrPC bail often barriers, pairokars. thereby p records. personally false s anteceden petition Conseque brushed a attempt t immediate

12. his/her ca by the pro litigation anteceden inference dishonest withholdi

47220-2026 (O&M)

Pertinently, the consequence criminal antecedents/ previous c ntly heightened severity to an ap en contrasted with regular bail C (Section 483 BNSS). An inc n faces structural constraints in t restricted access to documen . Conversely, an applicant seek possessing direct access to lega Furthermore, an application/p y backed by a sworn affidavit ex tatement or deliberate nts/previous criminal involveme from mere procedural non ently, suppression in anticipat aside as an inadvertent clerical o o manipulate judicial proceedi e reach of custody. Ergo, allowing a litigant who ase evaluated on merits; moreso osecution; undermines judicial e tactics. If the only consequen nts/previous criminal involvem by the court while considering s litigants (resorting to such pr ng or giving misleading/incom es of non-disclosure of complet criminal involvements apply w application/petition for anticipato application/petition under Secti carcerated accused seeking regu the form of severe communicati nts and reliance on third-pa king pre-arrest bail is at freedo al counsel, case files, and pub petition for anticipatory bail xecuted directly by the petitioner omission regarding crimi ents in this context transitions n-disclosure to active perju tory bail applications cannot oversight; it represents a deliber ings while remaining beyond o suppresses material facts to ha o, after the suppression is expos fficiency and encourages dishon nce of non-disclosure of crimi ments is taking of an adve such bail plea on merits thereof, ractise) face no real downside mplete information as they lo

ely with ory ion ular ion arty om blic is . A inal the ury. be rate the ave sed nest inal erse the to ose MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.07 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-4 nothing b sole grou anteceden sending an an absolut

13. statement criminal i strikes at of law for public res pleas is a

pertinent omission of the rul eroded if litigant w should be be discou misplaced in such a litigation, premium reasonabi of justic

47220-2026 (O&M)

by taking a chance on deceiving und of suppression of mater nts/previous criminal involvemen n unequivocal signal that approa te prerequisite for equitable relie Pertinently, this growing t ts, particularly with regard t involvements, is a malady that m the very root of judicial propriet r a ride, is to invite judicial anarc source, and its diversion into the vexatious abuse of process. An individual seeking an e aspect, clandestinely mocks exposed is to be considered a d le of law. The sanctity of the f such attempt(s) is not respon who misuses the process of law e left in no doubt about the cons uraged not to venture along the d expectation of judicial lenienc a situation are inevitable and n as in the law which is rather pr on the truth. Such misleading lity have to be construed as trifli ce. Pertinently, such vexatio g the court. Thus, dismissal on rial facts, in particular crimi ents, establishes a crucial deterre aching the court with clean hands ef. trend of making false/misleadi to criminal antecedents/previo must be detested by this Court, a ty. To permit a litigant to take co chy. The judicial time is a precio e redundant channels of misleadi equitable relief, while conceali the process of court. Ergo, eliberate, unpardonable subversi judicial process will be seriou nded with necessary firmness. w or take liberties with the tru sequences to follow. Others shou e same path in the hope or on cy or indulgence. Exemplary cos necessary, so as to ensure that racticed in our Country, there is plea(s) which are deficient in a ing with the Courts and the proc us and virulent attempt(s)

the inal ent, s is ing ious s it ourt ous ing ing the ion usly A uth uld n a sts, in no any ess by MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.07 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-4 unscrupul ought to real time i

Analysis

Analysis

Analysis

Analysis (

14. clear that inasmuch following amendme sought to learned co has still n anteceden as to how according applicatio More so, significan the petitio subsequen

47220-2026 (O&M)

lous elements, aimed at misusin be detested. Accordingly, costs in nature, ought to be imposed u (re: facts of t re: facts of t re: facts of t re: facts of the present case he present case he present case he present case) Reverting to the facts of the t the petitioner has not approac as, she has not disclosed her g cases: S.No. Particulars

FIR No.365/2017 NDP

FIR No.83/2023 NDPS

FIR No.64/2017 NDPS

FIR No.07/2025 P.S. C By way of the applicati ent/modification of the petition disclose her antecedents though ounsel for the respondent-NCB not given any explanation nay pl nts were not disclosed earlier. Th w the petitioner could describe he g to the material subsequently pla on by respondent - NCB, she wa , the absence of any satisfact nce because the original petition w oner herself. A statement made ntly be diluted merely by filing ng the process of law and Cour s, which ought to be veritable a upon such litigant. e petition in hand, it is absolut ched this Court with clean han r antecedents in the shape of PS Act P.S. Sidhuwa Bet S Act P.S. Sadar Jagraon S Act P.S. Sidhuwa Bet City Jagraon ion (CRM-36362-2026), seeki in hand, the petitioner has n h only after raising objection by at the preliminary stage itself b lausible explanation as to why s here is no explanation forthcomi erself as a first-time offender wh aced before the Court by way of as involved in other criminal cas tory explanation assumes grea was filed along with an affidavit e on oath before the Court cann an application seeking amendm

rts, and tely nds, the ing ow the but aid ing hen, f an ses. ater t of not ent MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.07 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-4 after the disclosure invoked anteceden particular the bona disentitlin therefore, disclosure NCB. Ev petitioner These cir hesitation suppressio withholdi criminal i in the form considers examinati evidentiar agency. E

Decision

Decision

Decision

Decision

15.

(i) dismissed

47220-2026 (O&M)

prosecution has pointed out e does not efface the fact that the jurisdiction of this Court, nts had not been disclosed. rly when accompanied by an af fides of the litigant and itself ng the petitioner to a discret is not one of a mere techni e has been made only after the o en thereafter, no plausible expl r for the non-disclosure of her rcumstances, when considered n for this Court to hold that ther on of the antecedents of the petit Ergo, once the petitioner ng the material facts (as to h involvements), she has forfeited m of pre-arrest bail. Consequent it neither necessary nor duty ion of the merits of the allegatio ry value of the material colle Ergo, the petition in hand ought to In view of the prevenient rati The petition in hand is d d with costs of ₹50,000/-, which t the omission. The subsequ when the petitioner had initia , a material fact concerning h Suppression of material fac ffidavit of the petitioner, strikes constitutes a serious circumstan tionary relief. The present ca ical omission and the subsequ objection raised by the responde anation has been furnished by antecedents in the first instan cumulatively, leave no room re has been material and deliber tioner in the petition in hand. has approached this Court her criminal antecedents/previo her entitlement for equitable rel ntly, in view of the same, this Co y bound to enter into a detai ons or to record any finding on ected so far by the investigati o be dismissed on this score alon iocination, it is ordained thus: devoid of merits and is here shall be deposited by the petition

ent ally her cts, s at nce ase, ent ent- the nce. for rate by ious lief ourt led the ing ne. eby ner MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.07 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-4 with Chie today. In remitted t costs are is directed such cost including Deputy C Ludhiana Authority Deputy C

(ii) Ludhiana

(iii) shall not h as also the being infl

(iv) Septembe Ajay/Mahavir

47220-2026 (O&M)

ef Judicial Magistrate (CJM), L case such costs are deposited; C to Punjab State Legal Services A not deposited by the petitioner a d to intimate the Deputy Comm ts recovered from the petitione as arrears of land revenue a Commissioner, Ludhiana shall h , for further remittance thereo y, Mohali. A compliance report ommissioner, Ludhiana, to this C Registry is directed to transm as also Deputy Commissioner, L Any observations made and/ have any effect on merits of the e trial Court shall proceed furthe luenced with this order. Pending application(s), if any

er 03, 2026 ir Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable:

Ludhiana, within four weeks fro CJM, Ludhiana shall have the sa Authority, Mohali. In case, the s as directed for; the CJM, Ludhia missioner, Ludhiana who shall ha er by employing all lawful mea and upon realization thereof, have the same submitted to CJ f to Punjab State Legal Servic be sent by CJM, Ludhiana as a Court accordingly. mit a copy of this judgment to CJ Ludhiana for requisite complianc /or submissions noted hereinabo e case and the investigating agen er, in accordance with law, witho y, shall also stand disposed of.

(SUMEET GOEL) (SUMEET GOEL) (SUMEET GOEL) (SUMEET GOEL)

JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE

Yes/No

Yes/No

om me aid ana ave ans the JM, ces also JM, ce. ove ncy out MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.07 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment