Bhupendra @ Chandi Lal vs State Of U.P.
2023 Latest Caselaw 11491 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 75
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 48720 of 2022
 
Applicant :- Bhupendra @ Chandi Lal
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Bhupendra Singh,Kamlesh Ratan Yadav,Shravana Kumar Yadav
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and perused the record.

The instant bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 406 of 2019, under Sections 498A, 302, 201 I.P.C., Police Station Friends Colony, District Etawah, during the pendency of trial.

At the outset, learned Additional Government Advocate pointed out that in paragraph 18 of the affidavit filed in support of bail application, it is mentioned that the applicant has no criminal history nor he is previous convict except the present criminal case, whereas apart from this case, applicant has criminal history of following four cases:-

(1) Case Crime No. 212 of 2015, under Sections 272 I.P.C. and Sections 60, 63 Excise Act, Police Station Chaubiya, District Etawah,

(2) Case Crime No. 544 of 2018, under Sections 272, 411, 413, 414, 420, 467, 468 IPC and Section 60 Excise Act, Police Station Friends Colony, District Etawah,

(3) Case Crime No. 545 of 2018, under Sections 3/25/27 Arms Act, Police Station Friends Colony, District Etawah,

(4) Case Crime No. 205 of 2019, under Section 60 Excise Act, Police Station Friends Colony, District Etawah.

On putting query, learned counsel for the applicant could not dispute the aforesaid submission of learned A.G.A. and submits that deponent of this case is brother of the applicant and he was not aware about criminal history of the applicant, therefore, the same has not been mentioned.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find that the applicant has not come with clean hand as he has suppressed and concealed the material facts about his criminal history, which is also one of the relevant aspect for considering the bail prayer of the applicant.

In view of judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Neeru Yadav vs. State of U.P., (2015) 3 SCC 527, criminal antecedents of the accused cannot be ignored while deciding bail application, discretionary powers of Courts to grant bail must be exercised in a judicious manner in case of a habitual offender.

The said judgment has been further followed by the Apex Court in the case of Sudha Singh vs. State of U.P. and another, 2021 (4) SCC 781.

The courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One, who comes to the court, must come with clean hands and no material facts should be concealed. I am constrained to hold that more often the process of the court is being abused by unscrupulous litigants/accused to achieve their nefarious design. I have no hesitation in saying that a person, who has approached the Court concealing material facts is not entitled for any relief and such petition/application can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation.

Accordingly, the instant bail application is rejected.

However, it is open for the applicant to move second bail application with correct facts.

Order Date :- 18.4.2023

Shubham