New Delhi, Dec. 31 -- The Supreme Court has taken a stern view of litigants concealing their criminal antecedents, holding that the suppression of such material facts amounts to an abuse of the judicial process and, by itself, warrants the outright rejection of a bail plea. Dismissing the bail petition of a murder accused who falsely claimed to have no criminal history, a bench of justices Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe underlined that petitioners who fail to disclose their involvement in other criminal cases deserve no indulgence from the apex court and are not entitled even to a hearing on the merits. "Failure to disclose past antecedents or withholding of information about the criminal cases pending against the petitioner/accused is a ground, in itself, to reject the prayer for grant of bail, as withholding of such relevant information would amount to abuse of process," the bench said in a recent order. The ruling came while rejecting a special leave petition filed by Firoz @ Farhu, who sought bail in a case involving a murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Although notice had initially been issued in the matter, the counter affidavit filed by the Rajasthan government revealed that the petitioner was involved in two additional criminal cases - one registered in June 2023, prior to the present murder case lodged in June 2024, and another registered in August 2024. Despite this, the petitioner, in his special leave petition filed on August 22, 2025, claimed that he had "no antecedents". Calling the suppression deliberate and unacceptable, the bench held that the petitioner had attempted to mislead the court and secure discretionary relief by concealing relevant facts. On this ground alone, the court dismissed the petition. In doing so, the bench relied on a ruling from April this year in Munnesh Vs State of Uttar Pradesh, where another bench had strongly deprecated what it described as a "growing trend" of accused persons hiding their involvement in other criminal cases while seeking bail or protection from arrest. Quoting from the previous judgment, the court noted that in several cases, petitioners disclose their criminal history only after notices are issued and the state files a counter affidavit, effectively resulting in the apex court being "taken for a ride". "The result is that this Court, being the apex court of the country, is being taken for a ride. This Court has shown leniency in the past but we think it is time that such state of affairs is not allowed to continue further," the April bench had observed. The latest ruling reinforces the Supreme Court's firm line that candour and full disclosure are non-negotiable when seeking discretionary relief such as bail....