logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide

24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 SC 120 print Preview print print
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 -
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.

 
  CDJLawJournal