Allahabad High Court
Shadab Khan vs State Of U.P. And Another on 4 October, 2023
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:190257
Court No. - 72
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10909 of 2023
Applicant :- Shadab Khan
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- J.B. Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard learned counsel for applicant as well as Sri R.P. Patel, learned A.G.A. for State and also perused the material available on record.
3. The present application for anticipatory bail has been filed for protection in regard to FIR/Case Crime No. 571 of 2019, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B I.P.C., P.S.- Nauchandi, District- Meerut.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail vide order dated 27.1.2022 by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 15, Meerut, and subsequently, it was mentioned in it that the applicant has no criminal history. Subsequent to it, the miscellaneous application (Bail Cancellation Application No. 149 of 2022) was moved by the informant before the District & Session Judge, Meerut, whereby on the basis of the wrong averment made by the applicant regarding his criminal antecedents, the said bail order dated 27.1.2022 was set aside vide order dated 24.8.2023. Learned counsel has stated that the first informant is an advocate and has misused his clout and as such, has got the said bail application cancelled. The applicant is not the previous convict, as such, one case pending against the applicant i.e. Case Crime No. 422 of 2013 is the case of embezzlement filed by his department and has nothing to do with the informant.
5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail as the applicant has not come with clean hands. Learned A.G.A. has also stated that Section 44 of the Indian Evidence Act bars the granting of bail with respect to the person, who has concealed or got the order by misleading the Court. Section 44 of the Indian Evidence Act reads as under :-
"44. Any party to a suit or other proceeding may show that any judgment, order or decree which is relevant under Section 40, 41 or 42, and which has been proved by the adverse party, was delivered by a court not competent to deliver it, or was obtained by fraud or collusion."
6. Considering the rival submissions advanced by the learned A.G.A. that the applicant had concealed the said fact of his criminal antecedents and got the said order from the Court concerned and the order of the Sessions Judge, Meerut, vide order dated 24.8.2023 does not seem to be effected by any infirmities, and is proper. Learned Sessions Judge was pleased not to interfere with the order with respect to other co-accused persons, as they had not filed a false affidavit. Therefore, I do not find it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.
7. In view of the above, the present anticipatory bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.
(Justice Krishan Pahal)
Order Date :- 4.10.2023
Shalini
