Dismissed¶21

Shamshad v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC4 Feb 2025BAIL/1494/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail rejected for suppression of criminal history; clean-hands doctrine applied to Section 439 Cr.P.C. bail prayer in attempt-to-murder (S.307 IPC) case, Kanpur Dehat. Habitual-offender antecedents: 5 cases (379/411 IPC x2; 307, 427, 119, 120B IPC; 3/25 Arms Act; 317(2), 317(4), 352, 109 BNS). Neeru Yadav (2015) 3 SCC 527 relied on; further supported by Sudha Singh 2021 (4) SCC 781. Fresh bail application with correct facts permitted. Allahabad High Court, 2025:AHC:14945, dated 04.02.2025.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; bail refused. Liberty accorded to the applicant to move a second bail application with correct facts. ¶21

Shamshad vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief; bail refused. Liberty accorded to the applicant to move a second bail application with correct facts.

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant is entitled to be released on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. during the pendency of trial in Case Crime No. 840 of 2019 (Sections 307, 427, 119, 120B I.P.C., Police Station Akbarpur, District Kanpur Dehat). +1 more

¶7

Court's answer

The instant bail application is rejected because the applicant has not come with clean hands, having suppressed and concealed material facts about his criminal history, which is a relevant aspect in considering his bail prayer.

¶16

Ratio / Principle

In view of the Apex Court judgments in Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. ((2015) 3 SCC 527) and Sudha Singh v. State of U.P. and another (2021 (4) SCC 781), criminal antecedents of the accused cannot be ignored while deciding a bail application, and the discretionary power to grant bail must be exercised judiciously in the case of a habitual offender.

¶17

Key takeaways

One who comes to the court must come with clean hands and no material facts should be concealed; a person who has approached the Court concealing material facts is not entitled to any relief and such petition/application can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation.ratio¶19
It remains open for the applicant to move a second bail application with correct facts.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Sanjay Kumar Singh, J.; order dated 4.2.2025; neutral cit. 2025:AHC:14945) REJECTED the bail application (CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 1494 of 2025) of applicant Shamshad under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking release during trial in Case Crime No. 840 of 2019 (Sections 307, 427, 119, 120B I.P.C., P.S. Akbarpur, Distt. Kanpur Dehat). Ground: the affidavit disclosed criminal history of only 02 cases whereas the applicant in fact has 05 cases (including Arms Act and BNS offences); counsel conceded the sister-deponent was unaware of the complete history. Relying on Apex Court decisions in Neeru Yadav (2015) 3 SCC 527 and Sudha Singh 2021 (4) SCC 781, the court held that criminal antecedents of the accused cannot be ignored and that a person who approaches the Court concealing material facts is not entitled to relief and may be thrown out summarily. Liberty reserved to move a second bail application with correct facts.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:14945

¶2

Court No. - 64

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1494 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Shamshad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Suresh Kumar Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

¶6

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

¶7

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. 840 of 2019, under Sections 307, 427, 119, 120B I.P.C., Police Station Akbarpur, District Kanpur Dehat, during the pendency of trial.

¶8

At the outset, learned Additional Government Advocate pointed out that in paragraph 13 of the affidavit filed in support of bail application, the applicant has disclosed his criminal history of 02 cases only whereas the applicant has criminal history of total following 05 cases including the present case:-

¶9

(i) Case Crime No. 35 of 2018, under Sections 379, 411 IPC, Police Station Amrahat, District Kanpur Dehat,

¶10

(ii) Case Crime No. 539 of 2019, under Sections 379, 411 IPC, Police Station Bhognipur, District Kanpur Dehat,

¶11

(iii) Case Crime No. 840 of 2019, under Sections 307, 427, 119, 120B I.P.C., Police Station Akbarpur, District Kanpur Dehat

¶12

(iv) Case Crime No. 196 of 2022, under Sections 3/25

¶13

Arms Act, Police Station Bhognipur, District Kanpur Dehat, and

¶14

(v) Case Crime No. 398 of 2024, under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 352, 109 BNS, Police Station Katra, District Shahjahanpur.

¶15

On putting query, learned counsel for the applicant could not dispute the aforesaid submission of learned A.G.A. and submits that since the sister of the applicant is deponent in the present case and she was not aware about the complete criminal history of the applicant, therefore, the same could not be mentioned.

¶16

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.

¶17

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.

¶18

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 .

¶19

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.

¶20

Accordingly, the instant bail application is rejected .

¶21

However, it is open for the applicant to move second bail application with correct facts.

¶22

Order Date :- 4.2.2025 Shubham

¶23

Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM KUMAR AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shamshad v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shamshad v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd Islam vs State of U.P.

Moni vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Manish Gond Alias Manish Kumar vs State of U.P.

Saurabh Singh @ Priyanshu vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Imtiyaj Khan @ Imtiyaj Ahmad @ Intiyaj Ahamad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Pushpa Devi vs State of U.P.