'Better To Lose By Making Correct Statement Than To Lose Confidence Of Court': Orissa HC Denies Bail To Economic Offender For Misrepresenting SC Order

The Orissa High Court has denied bail to a person, accused of committing economic offences, for misleading the Court with regard to an order passed by the Supreme Court so as to obtain an adjournment and by playing such fraud, to extend the period of liberty.

While deprecating such conduct on the part of the petitioner, the Single Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo observed –

“Truth plays pivotal role in the justice delivery system and the entire judicial system exists for discerning and finding out the real truth. It is often said that it is better to lose a case by making correct statement in Court than to lose the confidence of the Court by deliberately making false or misleading statements.”

Brief Background

The petitioner was charge-sheeted in three different cases for offences under Section 120-B read with Sections 409, 420, 471 of the IPC and Section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The petitioner filed bail applications in the aforesaid cases but the same were rejected by the Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, CBI Court-I, Bhubaneswar on 13.01.2021. Thus, being aggrieved by such rejection of bail, the petitioner approached the High Court by filing these three bail applications.

Contentions

Sarthak Nayak, Special Public Prosecutor for CBI pointed out that the Court had released the petitioner on interim bail for six months by the order dated 16.11.2021. However, while the present bail applications were sub-judice before the Court, the petitioner filed three fresh bail applications by changing his lawyer, stating therein that the present bail petitions have been disposed of.

It was further submitted that when the Court modified the terms and conditions of the interim bail orders dated 16.11.2021, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court challenging the same. The top Court stayed the order of the High Court and exempted the petitioner from surrendering till the bail applications are considered and disposed of by the High Court.

On 02.05.2023, when the present bail applications were listed for final adjudication, the order dated 06.01.2023 of the Apex Court was produced and submission was by the counsel for the petitioner that the Supreme Court has inadvertently mentioned that the stay order is extended till the bail applications are disposed by the High Court, whereas the stay was only till the SLPs are disposed of by the top Court.

The CBI counsel argued that due to such misleading submission made by the counsel for the petitioner on 02.05.2023, the High Court could not take up the matter and consequently, the case was adjourned and the petitioner enjoyed the extended period of liberty.

When the matter was taken up by the Supreme Court on 07.08.2023, Dr. Menaka Guruswamy, Senior Advocate informed the Court that due to incorrect instructions given by the counsel for the petitioner to the High Court on 02.05.2023, the bail applications could not be disposed of on the said date and the same was adjourned.

Thus, it was vehemently argued that on account of misleading and false statement before the High Court, the disposal of the present three bail applications got delayed and the petitioner enjoyed liberty. Therefore, in view of the nature and gravity of accusations and the conduct of the petitioner in playing tricks with the Court, the bail applications should be dismissed.

Court's Observations

The Court found considerable force in the submission of the CBI counsel that the petitioner misled the High Court by giving incorrect instruction with regard to the order passed by the Supreme Court on 06.01.2023 for which the case could not be disposed of by the High Court and the petitioner availed extended liberty.

“False and misleading statements in Court create obstacles in the dispensation of justice. Indian judiciary is considered by the citizens in the country with the highest esteem. The High Court is a protector of the fundamental rights of the citizens and it is also endowed with a duty to keep the other pillars of democracy i.e. the Executive and the Legislature, within the constitutional bounds.”

The Bench held that a party forfeits to claim leniency from the Court after playing fraud on it or misleading it on questions of fact or law.

“A false statement is a lie. Once a lie is told, it always starts with a series of lies. If there is suppression of material facts or twisted facts are placed before the Court, it can be a ground in refusing relief. Unscrupulous litigants abuse the process of the Court by deceiving it,” it added.

Though the plea of long incarceration was put forth on behalf of the petitioner, but the Court still denied to grant any relief on the ground that he is accused of committing economic offences involving a huge tune of money.

“It is no more a res integra that Courts must be slow in granting bail to persons accused in economic offences and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has time and again held that economic offences are crime against the society which affects very social and economic fabric of the nation,” it observed.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the applications for bail. However, it directed the trial Court to complete the trial within one year from framing of the charge. Liberty was granted to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail if the trial could not be completed within the said period.

Case Title: Uma Shankar Patro v. Republic of India

Case No: BLAPL Nos.541, 542 & 543 of 2021

Date of Order: August 16, 2024

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Ashok Kumar Parija, Senior Advocate

Counsel for the State: Mr. Sarthak Nayak, Special Public Prosecutor (CBI)

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ori) 70

Click Here To Read/Download Order