While discarding the argument that an accused is not obligated to disclose earlier bail rejection orders in a quashing petition, the Bench of Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra categorically held–

“Such a submission runs contrary to the settled principles governing disclosure and the obligation of a litigant to make full and candid disclosure before a Court of law. Accordingly, on this ground alone, the present petition is liable to be dismissed.”

An FIR was registered under Sections 126(2), 296, 118(1), 109(1), 61(2), 303(2) read with 3(5) of the BNS on the accusation that he had hired two unknown assailants to cause fatal assault on the informant. It was alleged that as per his instructions, two men on bike intercepted the informant and brutally assaulted him on various parts of his body.

The petitioner filed this petition under Section 528 of the BNSS (akin to Section 482, CrPC) seeking to quash the impending criminal proceedings on the ground that no case is made out against him even if the allegations made in the FIR are accepted on their face value.

At this juncture, the counsel appearing for the informant apprised the Court that the petitioner has deliberately suppressed an order dated 10.09.2026 passed by the High Court in an anticipatory bail application in connection with the case, wherein relief was denied to him. It was also brought to the notice of the Court that the said order was unsuccessfully challenged before the Supreme Court through a special leave petition.

The Apex Court, by an order dated 16.10.2026, denied anticipatory bail to the petitioner and asked him to surrender before the jurisdictional Court and seek regular bail. However, the petitioner suppressed the aforesaid orders and filed this quashing petition on 21.10.2026.

When the Court inquired about such severe dereliction on the part of the petitioner, the counsel appearing for him submitted that an accused seeking to quash an FIR was not required to disclose the dismissal of an earlier anticipatory bail application.

However, such response was nixed by the Bench by relying upon the stipulations made under Clause 5(2) of Chapter XVIII (Procedure in Criminal Cases) of the Rules of the High Court of Orissa, 1948. Clause 5(1)(a) reads thus–

“Every petitions for relief on criminal matter shall contain a declaration supported by an affidavit of the applicant himself or his authorized agent stating if, any other application either [under section (430), 482 or 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 or under section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023] or Criminal Revision or a Writ Petition (Criminal) concerning the same case of the Court below is pending or has been disposed of by the High court or any other Court upon such petition being filed either by the applicant or by any party to such proceeding including the accused involved in the case with result thereof if such case is disposed of.”

Similarly, Clause 5(1)(b) of the Rules requires such petitioner to state whether similar application has been made to the Supreme Court, and if made, shall state the result thereof. He is also needed to mention if he is/was involved in any other criminal case, along with particulars and decisions thereof.

“In view of the aforesaid provisions, the submission of Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner was neither required nor under any obligation to disclose the orders dated 10.09.2026 and 16.10.2026, whereby his application for anticipatory bail was rejected by the Coordinate Bench of this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, respectively, is wholly misconceived and devoid of merit,” the Court thus observed.

Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition along with an exemplary cost of Rs. 50,000/-, which was ordered to be deposited in the Odisha Chief Minister's Relief Fund, on the ground of deliberate suppression of material facts, and not approaching the Court with clean hands.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Devashis Panda, Advocate

Counsel for the Opposite Parties: Mr. A.K. Mohanty, Addl. Standing Counsel for the State; Mr. Amitav Tripathy, Advocate for the Informant