Vijay Shanker Yadav vs State Of U.P.
2024 Latest Caselaw 6098 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Vijay Shanker Yadav vs State Of U.P. on 29 February, 2024

Author: Sanjay Kumar Singh

Bench: Sanjay Kumar Singh

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:36981
 
Court No. - 77
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6922 of 2024
 

 
Applicant :- Vijay Shanker Yadav
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Murari Tripathi
 
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. 0043 of 2022, under Sections 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. and Section 7A/13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Babhani, District Sonbhadra, during the pendency of trial.

At the outset, learned Additional Government Advocate pointed out that in paragraph 15 of the affidavit filed in support of bail application, it is mentioned that the applicant has no criminal history except present case, whereas apart from this case, applicant has criminal history of following two cases:-

"(i) Case Crime No. 56 of 2009, under Sections 120B, 409 IPC, Police Station Babhani, District Sonbhadra,

(ii) Case Crime No. 216 of 2008, under Sections 147, 323, 427, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Babhani, District Sonbhadra."

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 nephew 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. It is also made clear that merit of the case has not yet been considered.

Order Date :- 29.2.2024

Shubham