The Supreme Court expressed concern on Friday over litigants disrespecting the court and attempting to mislead it. Justices Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal issued directives to streamline appellate-stage bail applications, aiming to prevent anomalies and conflicting orders.
The court emphasized this during a case where the petitioner sought bail simultaneously from the Supreme Court and the Orissa High Court, without disclosing the dual filings, accusing them of “polluting the administration of justice.”
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 Supreme Court Stated
The highest court expressed regret over the decline in moral values in society, attributing it to “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‘,
further the court Held
The Supreme Court stressed the importance of lawyers acting as true officers of the court in bail cases and mandated specific details in all bail applications.
These include providing copies of prior bail orders, disclosing pending applications in lower or higher courts, and a clear statement if none are pending.
The court highlighted the necessity for meticulous adherence to this system to prevent inconsistencies in bail orders.
n 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,
The Court Held
Additionally, it specified that the relevant registry should attach a report outlining the status of pending bail applications related to the specific crime 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,”
The Court Stated
The Supreme Court emphasized the duty of investigation officers and court officials to inform the bench about various bail orders involving the litigants.
A directive was issued to send a copy of the verdict to all Chief Justices through High Courts’ Registrar Generals for necessary action. These instructions were given during the consideration of a bail application related to a drug possession case.
The applicant, after a rejected bail plea by the Orissa High Court, filed subsequent pleas without disclosing the previous rejection, leading to the accused obtaining bail from the Orissa High Court without revealing the pending Supreme Court appeal.
The Supreme Court, while criticizing the conduct, opted for leniency instead of outright bail cancellation.
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,
The Court Observed
The appeal before the highest court was dismissed as irrelevant, and the bail applicant was fined ₹10,000. The court directed the deposit of this fine with the Mediation and Conciliation Centre linked to the Orissa High Court within two months.
Kusha Duruka, the accused, was represented by Advocates Haraprasad Sahu, Sushant Kumar Mallik, and Pranaya Kumar Mohapatra.
Advocate General Ashok Parija, Senior Advocate R Basant, and advocates Prakash Ranjan Nayak, Balaram Nayak, Sibashish Misra, and Chaitanya Chauhan appeared for the State of Odisha.
[Read Judgment]
