| |
CDJ 2026 SC 120
|
| Court : Supreme Court of India |
| Case No : Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 17202 of 2025 |
| Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. VINOD CHANDRAN |
| Parties : Pradip @ Monu Arunkumar Chhotelal Tiwari Versus State of Gujarat
|
| Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: Nikhil Goel, Sr. Advocate, Anuja Pethia, AOR, Noor Shergill, Rishabh Nigam, Bhavik Samani, Rishabh Govila, Kshirja Agarwal, Amisha Aggarwal, Advocates. For the Respondent: Swati Ghildiyal, AOR, Sankalp Suman, Advocate. |
| Date of Judgment : 12-01-2026 |
| Head Note :- |
Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 -
|
| Summary :- |
Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Sections 109(1), 118(1), 189(2), 189(4), 190, 191(3), 191(2), 126(2), 324(6), 296(b) and 351(3))
- Gujarat Police Act, 1951 (Section 135(i))
- Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949
Catch Words:
bail, special leave petition, disclosure, abuse of process, clean hands
Summary:
The special leave petition sought bail for offences under multiple sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Gujarat Police Act, 1951. The State of Gujarat highlighted that the petitioner had failed to disclose a prior case from 2020 under the Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949. The Court referenced Munnesh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, emphasizing the duty of a petitioner to disclose all material facts and approach the Court with clean hands. Non‑disclosure was deemed an abuse of the judicial process. Consequently, the petition could not be entertained on this ground. The pending applications, if any, were ordered disposed of.
Conclusion:
Petition Dismissed |
| Judgment :- |
|
K. Vinod Chandran, J.
This special leave petition was filed for grant of bail in connection with First Information Report (FIR) No. 11191024250315/2025 dated 14.03.2025 registered with Police Station - Ramol, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, for the offences punishable under Sections 109(1), 118(1), 189(2), 189(4), 190, 191(3), 191(2), 126(2), 324(6), 296(b) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 135(i) of the Gujarat Police Act, 1951.
2. However, the counter affidavit filed by the State of Gujarat indicates that the petitioner failed to disclose the past case dating back to the year 2020 that was registered against him under the Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949.
3. Failure to disclose that relevant fact would be in violation of the law laid down by this Court in Munnesh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1319. When a petitioner approaches this Court for grant of relief, he/she/it is expected to do so with clean hands, disclosing all material facts. Failure to do so, would amount to an abuse of the process of this Court.
4. The special leave petition is dismissed on that short ground.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
|
| |
