Supreme Court reject bail application as accused was having criminal antecedents of similar nature

We would have definitely considered the plea for bail

only on the ground that the petitioner is in judicial custody as

an under trial prisoner past more than eight years, however,

what has deterred us in exercising our discretion are the

antecedents of the petitioner of the very same nature with which

he has been charged with in the presence case. {Para 2}

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

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.10438/2026

LISHAM IBUNGOTOMBA SINGH Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL 

Date : 01-09-2026 This matter was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. VINOD CHANDRAN

Print Page

Supreme Court: What must be the nature of enquiry which is Necessary To Dismiss Employee from service For Suppression Of Criminal Antecedents?

 Needless to say, knowledge of a fact is a necessary

pre-requisite for its non-disclosure. The very concept of

suppression presupposes an awareness of that which is

suppressed; one cannot be said to have withheld or

concealed something of which one had no knowledge in

the first place. It would be both illogical and unjust to

hold a candidate liable for suppression of information

that was never within his knowledge to begin with.

Therefore, where the very existence of a criminal

antecedent is not shown to have been within the

candidate's knowledge at the relevant time, he cannot be

held to have suppressed or furnished false information

in that regard, there being no suppression of a fact that

was, to him, non-existent. {Para 31}

32. We hasten to add that such lack of awareness of

the existence of a criminal antecedent is itself a fact that

must be established by the candidate, the onus being

upon him to substantiate the claim before the employer.

A bare plea of ignorance, without cogent and reliable

material to assert such claim, will not suffice to escape

liability. Were it otherwise, the requirement of disclosure

in verification forms would be rendered illusory, open to

circumvention by simply pleading ignorance. In the

present case, as discussed above, we find that the

appellant's consistent claim of bona fide ignorance of the

NCR stands duly established by documentary evidence

on record.

33. The second prong of the enquiry to be undertaken

is whether the criminal antecedent, and the

suppression, if any, is of such nature that merits

termination of employment. In the present case, we

observe that although sufficient opportunity was

granted to the appellant to put forth his case, the

authorities have not undertaken such enquiry. They

have not considered the specific facts and circumstances

and have proceeded under the presumption that

existence of the criminal antecedent would

automatically render the appellant ineligible for the post.

There have been no specific findings regarding the

specific nature of the offence and its impact on the

nature of the post held by the appellant, and the

subsequent discharge of the appellant has not been

given due consideration.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.________OF 2026

[ @ SLP(CIVIL) NO. 7197 OF 2026 ]

SHATRUGHN YADAV Vs THE FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS TRAVANCORE LTD. (F.A.C.T.) AND OTHERS 

Author: AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.

Citation: 2026 INSC 829

Dated: AUGUST 11, 2026.

Print Page

Supreme court: When the person accused of economic offence is not entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity?

  Though the observations made in some of the above cases were in the context of heinous offences, which is not the case presently, we may note that the value of life and liberty of members of society is not limited only to their 'person' but would also extend to the quality of their life, including their economic well-being. In offences of a pecuniary nature, where innocent people are cheated of their hard-earned monies by conmen, who make it their life's pursuit to exploit and feast upon the gullibility of others, the aforestated factors must necessarily be weighed while dealing with the alleged offenders' pleas for grant of bail. {Para 19}

20. In the case on hand, the investigation against Respondent No. 1, as is borne out by the counter affidavit filed by the State, clearly demonstrates that he is a habitual offender. The number of diverse and unconnected aliases, fake IDs and the deliberate changes of identity, including his father's name, clearly manifest his nefarious intention to dupe innocent victims and cheat them.

21. Further, the fact that Respondent No. 1 was granted bail earlier but chose to indulge in the same activities once again, resulting in the registration of multiple FIRs over the years, demonstrates that he is a career criminal and a menace to society. The impugned order reflects that his past antecedents were not even taken into consideration. Similarly, his conduct in the context of the pending case was not noted. Having secured bail in relation to FIR No. 229 of 2017, Respondent No. 1 chose to abscond, resulting in issuance of a non-bailable warrant, which also brought to light the fact that his surety was not to be found.

22. In such circumstances, the High Court ought not to have blindly extended the parity principle to him without considering the particular and distinctive features of his individual case. Given the fact that Respondent No. 1 has not turned over a new leaf, despite the indulgence shown by grant of bail in relation to FIR No. 229 of 2017, as evidenced by the FIRs registered against him over the years, we are of the opinion that letting him loose on society would only pose a risk and hazard to others.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 957 of 2026 

Decided On: 17.02.2026

Rakesh Mittal Vs. Ajay Pal Gupta and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

P.V. Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.

Author: P.V. Sanjay Kumar, J.

Citation: 2026 INSC 161, MANU/SC/0164/2026

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

The Zeba Khan Ruling: 6 Mandatory Disclosures Every Criminal Litigator Must Know

 

The Hook: The Scandal of the "Medical School-less Doctor"

Imagine a man walking the halls of a prestigious hospital, stethoscope draped over his neck, diagnosing patients and prescribing medication, only for the world to discover he never spent a single day in medical school. It sounds like the high-stakes plot of a cinematic thriller, but in the Indian legal system, this scenario recently shifted from fiction to a startling, systemic reality—except the "doctor" was a lawyer practicing in the highest court of the land.

The case of Zeba Khan vs. State of UP (2026) centers on Mazhar Khan, a man who successfully navigated the Indian judiciary all the way to the Supreme Court using a forged LLB degree. Khan claimed his credentials came from the Sarvodya Group of Institutions, an entity he alleged was affiliated with Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University. In a twist of dark irony, the very mark sheet Khan used to secure his membership in the Supreme Court Bar Association contained a printed disclaimer stating it was not an original document. Yet, he practiced law for years before the fraud unraveled.

Print Page

Supreme Court: How criminal antecedents of convict are relevant while deciding his application for suspension of sentence?

 The criminal antecedents of Respondent No. 2 also assume significance. The prosecution has brought on record multiple prior cases registered against him, including offences involving violence and use of arms. Though it has been contended that such cases arose out of political rivalry and have culminated in acquittal, such a contention cannot, at this stage, efface the relevance of antecedents as a factor in assessing the propriety of granting suspension of sentence. {Para 22}

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1864 OF 2026

DHAN JEE PANDEY Vs THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANOTHER 

Author: R. MAHADEVAN, J.

Citation: 2026 INSC 349.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Appellate Court Cannot Dilute Liability Of Convict U/S 34 IPC At Interlocutory Stage Due To Absence Of Overt Act

The reliance placed by the High Court on the circumstance that the fatal shot was attributed to a co-accused, while Respondent No. 2 has been convicted with the aid of Section 34 IPC, is wholly misconceived. The doctrine of constructive liability under Section 34 IPC is well settled; where an offence is committed in furtherance of a common intention, each participant is equally liable for the act done in execution thereof. The absence of a specific overt act cannot, at this stage, dilute the culpability of the convict, particularly in the face of a finding of common intention. {Para 19}

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1864 OF 2026

DHAN JEE PANDEY Vs THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANOTHER 

Author: R. MAHADEVAN, J.

Citation: 2026 INSC 349

Print Page

Supreme Court: Under which circumstances, the high court or Session court should not release the accused on bail only on the ground that offence is triable by JMFC?

 At this stage, we may note that one of the grounds that weighed with the High Court was that the offences against Respondent No. 1 were triable by a Magistrate. However, the High Court overlooked the fact that the offences now alleged against Respondent No. 1 include offences Under Section 409 Indian Penal Code and Section 467 Indian Penal Code also. Significantly, the punishment for offences under these provisions can extend to imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term up to ten years. Similarly, some of the other offences for which Respondent No. 1 has been hauled up for entail a possible sentence of imprisonment over three years. {Para 12}

13. Under Section 29 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732, a Magistrate of First Class can pass a sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years, while a Chief Judicial Magistrate may pass a sentence of imprisonment, excepting imprisonment for a term exceeding seven years or a sentence of death or imprisonment for life. A Metropolitan Magistrate has the same powers as a Magistrate of First Class while a Chief Metropolitan Magistrate is equivalent to a Chief Judicial Magistrate.

14. In that view of the matter, it would always be open to a Magistrate, if he is of the opinion that any of the offences in the case are exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions, to commit the case to a Court of Sessions Under Section 209 Code of Criminal Procedure or Section 323 Code of Criminal Procedure. It may be noted that Under Section 323 Code of Criminal Procedure, such power can be exercised by the Magistrate even during the course of the trial. Therefore, the assumption of the High Court that the case on hand is triable by a Magistrate is premature.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 957 of 2026 

Decided On: 17.02.2026

Rakesh Mittal Vs. Ajay Pal Gupta and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

P.V. Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.

Author: P.V. Sanjay Kumar, J.

Citation: 2026 INSC 161, MANU/SC/0164/2026.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Under which circumstances, Magistrate Can Commit the case to Sessions court during Course Of Trial even if it is not exclusively triable by Session Court?

At this stage, we may note that one of the grounds that weighed with the High Court was that the offences against Respondent No. 1 were triable by a Magistrate. However, the High Court overlooked the fact that the offences now alleged against Respondent No. 1 include offences Under Section 409 Indian Penal Code and Section 467 Indian Penal Code also. Significantly, the punishment for offences under these provisions can extend to imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term up to ten years. Similarly, some of the other offences for which Respondent No. 1 has been hauled up for entail a possible sentence of imprisonment over three years. {Para 12}

13. Under Section 29 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732, a Magistrate of First Class can pass a sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years, while a Chief Judicial Magistrate may pass a sentence of imprisonment, excepting imprisonment for a term exceeding seven years or a sentence of death or imprisonment for life. A Metropolitan Magistrate has the same powers as a Magistrate of First Class while a Chief Metropolitan Magistrate is equivalent to a Chief Judicial Magistrate.

14. In that view of the matter, it would always be open to a Magistrate, if he is of the opinion that any of the offences in the case are exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions, to commit the case to a Court of Sessions Under Section 209 Code of Criminal Procedure or Section 323 Code of Criminal Procedure. It may be noted that Under Section 323 Code of Criminal Procedure, such power can be exercised by the Magistrate even during the course of the trial. Therefore, the assumption of the High Court that the case on hand is triable by a Magistrate is premature.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 957 of 2026 

Decided On: 17.02.2026

Rakesh Mittal Vs. Ajay Pal Gupta and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

P.V. Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.

Author: P.V. Sanjay Kumar, J.

Citation: 2026 INSC 161, MANU/SC/0164/2026

Print Page

Bombay HC: Under which circumstances person accused of possessing intermediate quantity of Ganja is entitled to be released on bail?

It was found that the present Applicant had cultivated Ganja and in all 27 plants and Ganja were found and the weight of these Ganja was around 14 kilogram. Its value is around Rs. 28,000/-. 

2. The learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the quantity seized is less than the commercial quantity though it is a bigger than the small quantity. It is submitted that the Applicant is behind bars since 7th November, 2013.

3. By way of precaution, a direction was given to the learned APP to ascertain as to whether the Applicant has criminal antecedents. She has made a statement that no such record is there against the Applicant.

4. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, this Court holds that it is not desirable to keep the Applicant behind bars till the disposal of the case, which may be filed against him. IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Criminal Application No. 6416 of 2013

Decided On: 24.12.2013

Jagan Parasram Chavan Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

T.V. Nalawade, J.

Citation: 2014 ALL MR (CRI) 4589,MANU/MH/2753/2013

Print Page

Supreme Court: Under which circumstances person accused of possessing commercial quantity of Ganja can be released on regular bail?

Though the seized quantity of contraband/ganja is shown as a

little above the ‘commercial quantity’ under the NDPS Act, we find that the said seized quantity also contained leaves, seeds and dry vegetative floral parts, which need to be excluded while computing the actual quantity of the contraband/ganja.

Counter affidavit/reply has been filed by the State of

Chhattisgarh and the learned counsel appearing for the State fairly

concedes that the appellant, Rajesh Sahu, has no past antecedents.

In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the

appellant, Rajesh Sahu, is entitled to grant of bail at this stage.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025

RAJESH SAHU  Vs  STATE OF CHHATTISGARH .

Dated: SEPTEMBER 01, 2025.

Print Page

Supreme Court : If an accused obtains anticipatory bail by suppressing material facts (e.g., prior rejections or hidden criminal antecedents), the Court will not hesitate to cancel it.

 In the present case, the allegations against the Accused Respondents, including Accused-Vishwajeet, are grave in nature. There is a clear observation by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in the bail rejection order dated 7th September 2023 that the Accused Respondents tried to mislead the Court by concealing the fact that the ex parte injunction order dated 27th June, 2023 had been set aside in appeal. The High Court seems to have glossed over this important aspect of the case and granted indulgence of pre-arrest bail to the Accused Respondents without considering the nature and gravity of allegations attributed to them and the fact that there was an imminent need for custodial investigation of the Accused Respondents. {Para 19}

20. Additionally, the High Court failed to notice the criminal antecedents of the Accused persons, which are highlighted in the counter affidavit filed by the State. Apparently, the incident recorded in the FIR was a clear-cut attempt by the estranged husband (Accused-Vishwajeet) to dispossess his own wife (Appellant-complainant) from her lawfully inherited property i.e., the subject-hotel, by use of force and by employing henchmen to do the dirty work. Hence, considering the gravity of allegations, it is not a case warranting indulgence of pre-arrest bail to the Accused. In our view, the High Court clearly erred in granting such liberty to the Accused Respondents. Furthermore, by threatening the witnesses, the Accused-Vishwajeet has flouted the conditions of anticipatory bail order. For this reason, also he cannot be allowed to continue on anticipatory bail.

Ratio: Anticipatory bail is an "extraordinary remedy." If an accused obtains it by suppressing material facts (e.g., prior rejections or hidden criminal antecedents), the Court will not hesitate to cancel it.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 3088 of 2025 

Decided On: 21.07.2025

Nikita Jagganath Shetty Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. 

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.

Author: Sandeep Mehta, J.

Citation: 2025 INSC 878, MANU/SC/0957/2025

Print Page

Important Supreme court and high courts judgment on bail {Part 4}

 

1) Supreme Court: Courts Must Exercise Caution in Granting Bail in Rape, Murder Cases Once Trial Begins

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

EXTRAORDINARY APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 13378 OF 2024

X Vs  STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. 

Dated: 27th November, 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 909.

https://www.lawweb.in/2025/11/supreme-court-courts-must-exercise.html

Print Page

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

Procedure to be followed by employer in case of suppression of fact of criminal antecedent by employee

We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and reconcile them as
far as possible. In view of aforesaid discussion, we summarize our conclusion thus:
(1) Information given to the employer by a candidate as to conviction,
acquittal or arrest, or pendency of a criminal case, whether before or after
entering into service must be true and there should be no suppression or
false mention of required information.
(2) While passing order of termination of services or cancellation of
candidature for giving false information, the employer may take notice of
special circumstances of the case, if any, while giving such information.
(3) The employer shall take into consideration the Government
orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of taking
the decision.
(4) In case there is suppression or false information of involvement in a
criminal case where conviction or acquittal had already been recorded
before filling of the application/verification form and such fact later
comes to knowledge of employer, any of the following recourse
appropriate to the case may be adopted : -
(a) In a case trivial in nature in which conviction had been
recorded, such as shouting slogans at young age or for a petty
offence which if disclosed would not have rendered an
incumbent unfit for post in question, the employer may, in its
discretion, ignore such suppression of fact or false information
by condoning the lapse.
(b) Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not trivial
in nature, employer may cancel candidature or terminate
services of the employee. 
(c) If acquittal had already been recorded in a case involving moral
turpitude or offence of heinous/serious nature, on technical
ground and it is not a case of clean acquittal, or benefit of
reasonable doubt has been given, the employer may consider all
relevant facts available as to antecedents, and may take
appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee.
(5) In a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully of a
concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider
antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate.
(6) In case when fact has been truthfully declared in character verification
form regarding pendency of a criminal case of trivial nature, employer, in
facts and circumstances of the case, in its discretion may appoint the
candidate subject to decision of such case.
(7) In a case of deliberate suppression of fact with respect to multiple
pending cases such false information by itself will assume significance
and an employer may pass appropriate order cancelling candidature or
terminating services as appointment of a person against whom multiple
criminal cases were pending may not be proper.
(8) If criminal case was pending but not known to the candidate at the time
of filling the form, still it may have adverse impact and the appointing
authority would take decision after considering the seriousness of the
crime.
(9) In case the employee is confirmed in service, holding Departmental
enquiry would be necessary before passing order of termination/removal
or dismissal on the ground of suppression or submitting false information
in verification form.
(10) For determining suppression or false information attestation/verification
form has to be specific, not vague. Only such information which was
required to be specifically mentioned has to be disclosed. If information
not asked for but is relevant comes to knowledge of the employer the
same can be considered in an objective manner while addressing the
question of fitness. However, in such cases action cannot be taken on
basis of suppression or submitting false information as to a fact which
was not even asked for.
(11) Before a person is held guilty of suppressio veri or suggestio falsi,
knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him.
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITIOIN [C] NO.20525/2011
Avtar Singh 
Vs.
Union of India & Ors. 
[With SLP [C] Nos.4757/2014 and 24320/2014]
Dated:July 21, 2016.
ARUN MISHRA, J.
Citation:2016 SCC online SC 726

Print Page