This is another case in which an effort has been made to pollute the stream of administration of justice. Anil Kumar Verma was faced with a situation where an attempt was made to deceive the Court and interfere with the administration of justice. 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. 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. 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. 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 fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final.” (emphasis supplied) 6. It can be stated with certitude that the accused- respondent tried to gain advantage by such factual suppression. 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.
Suppression of material facts from the court of law, is actually playing fraud with the court. No we are more happy to hear anything except truth; read anything except truth; speak anything except truth and believe anything except truth.
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. 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.
In the aforesaid case, first bail application filed by the appellant there was dismissed by the High Court, thereafter he moved second bail application before the High Court in which notice was issued on 30.11.2021.
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. 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. 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. 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.
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. 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. 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.
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. 12.2023 Learned counsel for the appellant pointed out before this Court that the appellant had already 18 been released by the High Court. 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.
It was mentioned therein that in second bail application though the appellant had disclosed about filing of his first bail 19 application, he had not disclosed any fact regarding pendency of the SLP before this Court. 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. 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.” 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. 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. 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.”
Case Title: KUSHA DURUKA Vs. STATE OF ODISHA (2024 INSC 46)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-000303-000303 / 2024
