Allahabad High Court
Rajesh Kumar @ Pappu Gupta vs State Of U.P. on 25 April, 2023
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 75
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39285 of 2022
Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar @ Pappu Gupta
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Dwivedi,Umesh Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mohd. Javed Akhtar
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant and perused the record.
By means of this second bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., applicant-Raj Kumar alias Pappu Gupta, who is involved in Case Crime No. 367 of 2020, under Sections 326A, 394, 307, 406, 419, 420, 411 of I.P.C., Police Station-Bahariya, District-Prayagraj, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial.
First bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 08.09.2021 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12321 of 2021.
At the outset, learned Additional Government Advocate pointed out that in paragraph 24 of the affidavit filed in support of bail application, it is mentioned that applicant has criminal history of two cases to his credit whereas apart from this case, applicant has criminal history of following six cases:-
(i) Case Crime No. 70 of 2000, under Sections 498, 307, 323 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Bahariya, District-Prayagraj.
(ii) Case Crime No. 201 of 2016, under Sections 41, 411, 413 I.P.C., Police Station-Mauaima, District-Prayagraj.
(iii) Case Crime No. 251 of 2016, under Sections 2/3 Gangster Act, Police Station-Mauaima, District-Prayagraj.
(iv) Case Crime No. 170 of 2008, under Sections 354, 323, 504, 506, 352, 376 I.P.C.,Police Station-Bahariya, District-Prayagraj.
(v) Case Crime No. 116 of 1999, under Sections 39/40 Electricity Act, Police Station-Bahariya, District-Prayagraj.
(vi) Case Crime No. 90 of 2007, under Section 60 Excise Act, Police Station-Civil Lines, District-Prayagraj.
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 third bail application with correct facts.
Order Date :- 25.4.2023
Kashifa
