Dismissed

Gautam Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC28 Jan 2023ABAIL/10008/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge dismissed an anticipatory bail application filed by the applicant. The court held that the application was based on a false affidavit which concealed the applicant's actual criminal history. The judge ruled that the applicant approached the court with unclean hands, thereby abusing the judicial process and forfeiting the right to relief.

What did the court decide?

The anticipatory bail application was dismissed, and any interim order stands vacated.

Gautam Yadav Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 77

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10008 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Gautam Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vimal Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶5

List revised. No one has appeared on behalf of the applicant to press this application.

¶6

Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned AGA for the State is present.

¶7

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 75 of 2021, under Sections 147, 323, 506, 308, 325, 394 IPC, P.S.Taryasujan, District-Kushi Nagar , with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.

¶8

Perusal of the order sheet goes to show that the matter is of the year 2021 and no one has appeared on behalf of the applicant to argue the case. Today, also no one has appeared to argue the case.

¶9

From the records, it is clear that offence is serious in nature as the injuries have been sustained by number of persons.

¶10

Learned AGA for the State, on the basis of instructions, submits that the applicant has criminal history of 7 cases, however, in para 10 of the affidavit, it has been mentioned that the applicant has criminal history of four cases, which has been explained.

¶11

Object of section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is that a person should not be unnecessarily harassed or humiliated in order to satisfy personal vendetta or grudge of complainant or any other person operating the things directly or from behind the curtains. It is well settled that discretionary power conferred by the legislature on this court can-not be put in a straitjacket formula, but such discretionary power either grant or refusal of anticipatory bail has to be exercised carefully in appropriate cases with circumspection on the basis of the available material after evaluating the facts of the particular case and considering other relevant factors (nature and gravity of accusation, role attributed to accused, conduct of accused, criminal antecedents, possibility of the applicant to flee from Justice , apprehension

¶12

of tampering of the witnesses or threat to the complainant, impact of grant of anticipatory bail in investigation, trial or society, etc.) with meticulous precision maintaining balance between the conflicting interest, namely, sanctity of individual liberty and interest of society.

¶13

From the records, it is clear that vague and false contents regarding criminal history of the applicant has been averred in paragraph 10 of the affidavit filed in support of anticipatory bail application as also no supplementary affidavit has yet been filed in that regard. Such conduct of the applicant conspicuously reflects concealment and non-disclosure of the facts.

¶14

As the applicant has not approached this Court with clean hand and filed this application suppressing the material facts in sheer disobedience of the orders of Supreme Court as well as this Court. Therefore, he/she does not deserve any indulgence by this Court.

¶15

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 to achieve their nefarious design. I have no hesitation in saying that a person, whose case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the court. He/she can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation. The judicial process cannot become an instrument of oppression or abuse or a means in the process of the Court to subvert justice, for the reason that the Court exercises its jurisdiction, only in furtherance of justice.

¶16

The Apex Court in the case of Arunima Baruah Vs. Union of India reported in (2007)6 SCC 120 , has held that it is trite law that to enable the Court to refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction suppression must of material fact. Material fact would mean material for the purpose of determination of the lis. It was further held that a person invoking the discretionary jurisdiction of the court cannot be allowed to approach it with a pair of dirty hands.

¶17

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dalip Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, reported in (2010)2 SCC 114 came down heavily on unscrupulous litigants by holding that it is now well established that a litigant who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final.

¶18

Having considered the factual aspect of the case and the dictum of the Supreme Court, I am of the considered view that the applicant has misused the process of law by filing false affidavit before this Court suppressing the material facts and documents and misled the Court. Honesty, fairness, purity of mind should be of the highest order to approach the court, failing which the litigant should be shown the exit door at the earliest point of time.

¶19

In view of the above, this anticipatory bail application is, accordingly, dismissed

¶20

Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

¶21

Order Date :- 28.1.2023 Jitendra/-

¶22

Digitally signed by :- JITENDRA KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Gautam Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gautam Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nishit Palo Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sanjeev Kumar Prajapati Vs State of U.P.

Narendra Dev Pandey Vs State of U.P.

Madan Kumar Soni Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Zubair and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kishun Dev Vs State of U.P.