Panch Bahadur And 8 Others vs State Of U.P.
2023 Latest Caselaw 16834 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:117685
 
Court No. - 75
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40427 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Panch Bahadur And 8 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Awadhesh Rai,Ram Prasad Dubey
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Awadhesh Kumar Yadav
 

 
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

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

By means of this application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., applicants who are nine in numbers namely Panch Bahadur, Asharfi, Khaderu @ Shiv Kumar, Pintu Kumar, Pukmani, Muila @ Muilee, Raj Kumar, Indresh and Nilesh who are involved in Case Crime No. 46 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 302, 323, 325, 336, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Uska Bazar, District Siddharthnagar seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial.

At the outset, learned Additional Government Advocate pointed out that in paragraph 20 of the affidavit filed in support of bail application, it is mentioned that the accused persons are not having any previous criminal history except the present one, whereas apart from this case, applicant no. 7 namely Raj Kumar has criminal history of following two cases:-

(i) Case Crime No. 679 of 2016, under Sections 323, 325, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Uska Bazar, District Siddharthnagar.

(ii) Case Crime No. 8 of 2022, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)Da, Dha SC/ST Act, Police Station Uska Bazar, District Siddharthnagar.

On putting query, learned counsel for the applicants could not dispute the aforesaid submission of learned A.G.A. and submits that he is subsequent counsel in this case and he was not aware about the criminal history of the applicant no. 7, therefore, the same has not been mentioned.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find that the applicants have not come with clean hand as they have suppressed and concealed the material facts about the criminal history of applicant no. 7 namely Raj Kumar, which is also one of the relevant aspect for considering the bail prayer of the applicants.

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 applicants to move second bail application with correct facts.

Since this bail application has not been heard on merits, therefore, it will not be treated as tied up or part heard to this Bench.

Office is directed to return the certified copy of the F.I.R. as well as free copy of the bail rejection order after retaining photocopies thereof on record.

Order Date :- 26.5.2023

Saurabh