Punjab & Haryana HC Dismisses Anticipatory Bail With ₹50,000 Costs for Deliberate Suppression of Four Prior NDPS Cases

Justice Sumeet Goel held that concealing four prior FIRs in a sworn petition forfeits equitable relief, dismissing the anticipatory bail plea on suppression alone without examining the merits.

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed the anticipatory bail petition of Kaushalya Rani, an accused in an NDPS case, and imposed costs of ₹50,000 after finding that she had deliberately concealed her involvement in four other criminal cases when she swore to being a first-time offender with no prior cases. Justice Sumeet Goel, sitting singly at Chandigarh, held that the suppression of material antecedents in a sworn petition — disclosed only after the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) raised a specific objection — struck at the very foundation of the petitioner's claim to equitable relief. The court declined to examine the merits of the bail plea at all, ruling that forfeiture of discretionary relief was the direct consequence of the suppression.

The NDPS Case and the Route to the High Court

Crime No. 27 dated 23 December 2025 was registered with the NCB, Chandigarh/Sahnewal, Ludhiana, under Sections 8, 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The genesis of the case was the alleged recovery of 117.61 grams of heroin from co-accused Manjeet Kaur.

During investigation, Manjeet Kaur allegedly made a disclosure statement implicating Kaushalya Rani as the source from whom the contraband had been procured. The prosecution also relied on call detail records showing contact between the petitioner and the co-accused.

Kaushalya Rani moved for anticipatory bail before the Special Judge, Ludhiana, who rejected the plea by order dated 1 June 2026. She then approached the High Court under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — the provision governing pre-arrest bail applications.

The Sworn Claim of Clean Antecedents

In her petition, Kaushalya Rani specifically stated that she was a first-time offender with no other case registered against her under the NDPS Act or any other law. The petition answered each of the mandatory antecedent questions required in NDPS bail applications: no other cases, no bail in other matters, no pending cases in the same court, no proclamation as an absconder.

The petition was filed with an affidavit sworn by the petitioner herself, making these assertions on oath.

At the preliminary hearing on 24 August 2026, the NCB's Special Public Prosecutor raised a specific oral objection that the petitioner was involved in multiple other cases which she had not disclosed. The court directed the NCB to file a reply specifically addressing her antecedents, and listed the matter for 3 September 2026.

Four Prior FIRs the Petitioner Did Not Mention

The NCB filed its reply through application No. CRM-36815-2026. The reply set out four prior FIRs registered against the petitioner:

• FIR No. 365/2017 — NDPS Act, P.S. Sidhuwa Bet
• FIR No. 83/2023 — NDPS Act, P.S. Sadar Jagraon
• FIR No. 64/2017 — NDPS Act, P.S. Sidhuwa Bet
• FIR No. 07/2025 — P.S. City Jagraon

Three of those four FIRs were under the NDPS Act itself — the very statute under which Kaushalya Rani had told the court she had never before been accused.

After the NCB's reply was filed, the petitioner moved a miscellaneous application (CRM-36362-2026) seeking amendment of the original petition to disclose the other cases. Her counsel argued before the court that the non-disclosure was not intentional and carried no oblique motive, that no deliberate attempt had been made to mislead, and that the filing of the amendment application itself demonstrated bona fides.

How the Court Analysed Suppression in Bail Proceedings

Justice Sumeet Goel framed two questions: whether Kaushalya Rani should be granted anticipatory bail on the facts, and — more fundamentally — whether a pre-arrest bail petition can be dismissed on the sole ground of deliberate suppression of criminal antecedents without adverting to the merits of the case at all.

The court's reasoning on the legal question was extensive. It described the jurisdiction under Section 482 BNSS as an “extraordinary discretionary and equitable dispensation,” designed as a buffer against unnecessary arrest, resting entirely on judicial discretion rather than statutory entitlement. Because the petitioner invokes an extraordinary equitable jurisdiction, the court held, the doctrine of Uberrima Fides — utmost good faith — applies with full force. The maxim suppressio veri, suggestio falsi (suppression of truth is equivalent to the suggestion of a falsehood) was applied directly.

The court drew on the Supreme Court's ruling in K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors. [(2008) 12 SCC 481], which held that a court exercising extraordinary power may dismiss an action on the ground of suppression or false statement alone and refuse to enter into the merits. Although that ruling arose under Article 226 writ jurisdiction, Justice Goel held its ratio applies with equal rigour to anticipatory bail proceedings.

The court also relied on Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh @ Lalla Babu & Anr. [(2012) 9 SCC 446], which held that criminal antecedents are a vital factor in bail adjudication that cannot be ignored even though a history-sheeter is not categorically disentitled to bail. Neeru Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. [(2016) 15 SCC 422] was cited for the proposition that ignoring antecedents renders bail discretion “whimsical, arbitrary, and deviant.” A three-Judge Bench ruling in Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar & Anr. [(2022) 4 SCC 497] was cited to show that bail discretion must rationally inquire into antecedents to prevent habitual offenders from exploiting judicial leniency.

The court further drew on the Supreme Court's direction in Munnesh v. State of Uttar Pradesh [SLP (Crl.) No. 1400/2025, Order dated 3 April 2025], where the apex court observed a growing trend of bail petitioners omitting their involvement in other criminal cases and directed mandatory disclosure of antecedents in the synopsis of every such petition, with any incorrect disclosure constituting an independent ground for dismissal.

Why the Court Rejected the “No Intention to Suppress” Defence

Justice Goel was unpersuaded by the explanation that the omission was inadvertent. The court pointed out that the original petition was filed with a sworn affidavit of the petitioner herself. A statement on oath before the court, the judgment noted, cannot subsequently be diluted merely by filing an amendment application after the prosecution has pointed out the omission.

The subsequent disclosure did not erase the fact that when the petitioner first invoked the court's jurisdiction, four prior FIRs — three of them under the NDPS Act — were not mentioned. Crucially, even after the NCB raised its objection and sought a reply on antecedents, no plausible explanation was furnished by Kaushalya Rani for why the cases had not been disclosed initially.

The court held that the circumstances, taken cumulatively, left no room for hesitation: there had been material and deliberate suppression of the petitioner's antecedents. Having approached the court by withholding material facts, she had forfeited her entitlement to equitable relief in the form of pre-arrest bail. The court expressly stated it considered it “neither necessary nor duty bound” to examine the merits of the allegations or record any finding on the evidentiary value of the material collected by the investigating agency.

On the substantive facts, the court noted for context that the petitioner's name surfaced only through Manjeet Kaur's disclosure statement and CDR analysis; she was not named in the FIR and no recovery was effected from her. The co-accused Manjeet Kaur had already been granted regular bail by the Special Court on 4 February 2026. The petitioner's counsel had argued that custodial interrogation was not necessary given that the challan had already been presented and the contraband had been recovered from the co-accused. The NCB had countered that the petitioner was a habitual offender, the allegations related to a commercial quantity of heroin, and custodial interrogation was required to trace the supply chain. The court declined to rule on any of this, having disposed of the petition on the suppression ground alone.

Order

The petition was dismissed with costs of ₹50,000. The costs are to be deposited by Kaushalya Rani with the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Ludhiana, within four weeks from the date of the order. On deposit, the CJM, Ludhiana is directed to remit the amount to the Punjab State Legal Services Authority, Mohali.

If the petitioner fails to deposit the costs within the stipulated period, the CJM, Ludhiana is directed to intimate the Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana, who shall recover the amount by all lawful means including as arrears of land revenue. On realisation, the Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana shall submit the amount to the CJM for onward remittance to the Punjab State Legal Services Authority, Mohali. A compliance report is to be sent to the High Court by both the CJM and the Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana.

The Registry was directed to transmit a copy of the judgment to the CJM, Ludhiana and the Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana for compliance. The court clarified that all observations and submissions noted in the order shall not affect the merits of the case, and the investigating agency and trial court are to proceed in accordance with law without being influenced by this order.