The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed an anticipatory bail application in an NDPS case with costs of ₹50,000 on the accused-petitioner who falsely claimed to be a first-time offender — and disclosed concealed antecedents only after being confronted by the prosecution.

Justice Sumeet Goel said, "allowing a litigant who suppresses material facts to have his/her case evaluated on merits; moreso, after the suppression is exposed by the prosecution; undermines judicial efficiency and encourages dishonest litigation tactics. If the only consequence of non-disclosure of criminal antecedents/previous criminal involvements is taking of an adverse inference by the court while considering such bail plea on merits thereof, the dishonest litigants (resorting to such practise) face no real downside to withholding or giving misleading/incomplete information as they lose nothing by taking a chance on deceiving the court.

The Court added, "Thus, dismissal on the sole ground of suppression of material facts, in particular criminal antecedents/previous criminal involvements, establishes a crucial deterrent, sending an unequivocal signal that approaching the court with clean hands is an absolute prerequisite for equitable relief."

Justice Goel highlighted that, "this growing trend of making false/misleading statements, particularly with regard to criminal antecedents/previous criminal involvements, is a malady that must be detested by this Court, as it strikes at the very root of judicial propriety. To permit a litigant to take court of law for a ride, is to invite judicial anarchy. The judicial time is a precious public resource, and its diversion into the redundant channels of misleading pleas is a vexatious abuse of process."

The case arose from an NCB case registered under Sections 8, 21 and 29 NDPS Act following the alleged recovery of 117.61 grams of heroin from co-accused Manjeet Kaur. During investigation, Manjeet Kaur made a disclosure statement implicating the petitioner as the source of the contraband, and CDR analysis allegedly showed contact between the two.

After her anticipatory bail plea was rejected by the Special Judge, Ludhiana, the petitioner approached the High Court, specifically averring on affidavit, as required under NDPS instructions, that she was a first-time offender with no other case registered against her anywhere in India and had never been declared a proclaimed offender.

At the preliminary hearing, the NCB's counsel objected that the petitioner had multiple undisclosed cases against her, prompting the Court to direct the NCB to file a reply on her antecedents. The NCB's reply revealed four prior cases, three under the NDPS Act and one other FIR. Only after this exposure did the petitioner move an application to amend her petition and disclose these cases.

Counsel for the petitioner argued that the non-disclosure was neither intentional nor motivated by any oblique purpose, that she had promptly sought amendment upon the objection being raised, and that this itself demonstrated bona fides. 

The NCB opposed the plea, contending that the petitioner was a habitual offender involved in four other cases reflecting continued criminal activity, that the allegations involved commercial quantity of heroin, that CDRs showing contact with co-accused required investigation, and that custodial interrogation was necessary to unearth the supply chain.

Justice Goel framed the "seminal legal question" as whether an anticipatory bail plea can be dismissed solely on the ground of deliberate suppression of antecedents, without examining the merits. Answering in the affirmative, the Court extensively discussed the doctrine of Uberrima Fides (utmost good faith) as foundational to the extraordinary, discretionary jurisdiction under Section 482 BNSS, invoking the maxim suppressio veri, suggestio falsi and holding:

"A party invoking the extraordinary statutory concession of pre-arrest liberty owes a solemn duty of unreserved candor to the Court; failure whereof strikes at the very root of the adjudicatory process."

The Court also invoked Rule 5, Chapter 1-A(b), Volume-V of the P&H High Court Rules and Orders, which mandates disclosure of any other criminal case in every bail application before the High Court.

It drew a specific distinction heightening the severity of suppression in anticipatory bail (as opposed to regular bail) applications, noting that an anticipatory bail applicant, unlike an incarcerated person facing custodial constraints, has free access to counsel, records and case files, and personally swears the petition on affidavit, such that:

"A false statement or deliberate omission regarding criminal antecedents/previous criminal involvements in this context transitions the petition from mere procedural non-disclosure to active perjury."

On facts, the Court found the petitioner's subsequent amendment application, filed only after the NCB's objection, furnished no explanation for the initial false averment of clean antecedents made on her own sworn affidavit, holding that "a statement made on oath before the Court cannot subsequently be diluted merely by filing an application seeking amendment after the prosecution has pointed out the omission." The Court held this was "material and deliberate suppression," disentitling her to equitable relief regardless of the merits of the false-implication defence, and declined to examine the merits at all.

Dismissing the petition on the ground of suppression alone, the Court imposed costs of ₹50,000 on the petitioner.

Case Title: Kaushalya Rani v. Union of India through the office of Narcotics Control Bureau

CRM-36362-2026 in/& 2026 in/& 2026 in/&

CRM-M-47220-2026 (O&M)

Click here to read order