Supreme Court: Petitioners seeking regular bail or anticipatory bail must mandatorily disclose their criminal antecedents.

However, before parting, we consider it necessary to dwell on one aspect. A growing trend is being noticed of individuals, seeking from this Court the concession of bail or concession of protection from arrest, not disclosing in the special leave petitions their involvement in other criminal cases. In such cases where involvement is not disclosed, on a prima facie satisfaction that long incarceration without reasonable progress in the trial is invading the right to life of the accused or that the offences for which the FIR has been registered are not too serious, notices are issued and only thereafter, information of criminal antecedents is being provided in the counter affidavits filed by the respective respondents-States, as in the present case. The result is that this Court, being the apex court of the country, is being taken for a ride. This Court has shown leniency in the past but we think it is time that such state of affairs is not allowed to continue further. {Para 11}

12. We, accordingly, direct that henceforth each individual who approaches this Court with a Special Leave Petition (Criminal) challenging orders passed by the high courts/sessions courts declining prayers under Sections 438/439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or under Sections 482/483, Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita 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, arising out of such case, have reached. Should the disclosure be found to be incorrect subsequently, that itself could be considered as a ground for dismissal of the special leave petition.

 S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 1400/2025

MUNNESH  Vs  STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 

Date : 03-04-2025 This matter was called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA

 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

Print Page

Delhi HC: Whether accused is entitled to be released on bail in the case of dowry death if wife has died in parental home and not in matrimonial home?

To recapitulate, in the present case, according to the accused/applicant, offence under Section 304B IPC is not made out because the deceased died at her parental and not matrimonial home; and that there being no allegation of dowry harassment during the period between 15.03.2023 when the deceased shifted to her parental home and 27.04.2023 when she committed suicide, the period is too large a period to be taken as a period contemplated by the phrase "soon before her death" used in the said provision. {Para 6}

7. I am unable to convince myself that merely because the deceased committed suicide in her parental home and not in her matrimonial home, it is not a case of dowry death. Place where a tormented lady gets compelled to kill herself has no bearing. For purposive interpretation of the provision under Section 304B IPC, it is the existence and continuance of matrimony which has to be kept in mind and not the place(s) to which the deceased shifts herself before taking her life.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

Bail Appln. 4627/2024

Decided On: 07.04.2025

Vinay Vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Girish Kathpalia, J.

Citation: MANU/DE/2357/2025.

Print Page