While noting that he had not mentioned the fact of previous criminal antecedents before the trial court, which granted him the relief, the Allahabad High Court has cancelled the anticipatory bail granted to an advocate in an extortion case.
A Single Bench of Justice Krishan Pahal passed this order while hearing a Criminal Misc bail cancellation application filed by Vinod Singh.
By means of the bail cancellation application, applicant is assailing the order dated 09.06.2023 passed by the Sessions Judge, Rampur in Second Anticipatory Bail Application under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 386, 397, 115, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Rampur in Complaint Case during the pendency of trial.
Counsel for the applicant has stated that the accused/opposite party no 2 has not approached the said Sessions Court with clean hands, as such concealed the factum of criminal antecedents of two previous cases.
The said fact can be verified from the order of the Sessions Judge dated 09.06.2023. It is true that he has been granted bail by the Court but the suppression of the said fact indicates that he is not entitled for anticipatory bail.
Per contra, counsel for the accused/opposite party no 2 has opposed the bail cancellation application on the ground that the accused/opposite party no 2 is an advocate and he has categorically explained his criminal antecedents in both the cases in which closure report was filed and, as such, he did not mention the said fact, but it is true that he is on bail in case he was convicted.
In rebuttal, counsel for the applicant has stated that non mentioning of criminal antecedents clearly goes against him and he has suppressed this fact. He has not approached the said court with clean hands, as such, the order dated 09.06.2023 is liable to be set aside.
The anticipatory bail application of co-accused Sadhna Singh and Sarla was also set aside by this Court on similar grounds for not explaining the criminal antecedents and the said order has been affirmed by the Supreme Court and, as such, the bail cancellation application is liable to be allowed.
The Court noted that,
The clean hands doctrine states that one “who comes into equity must come with clean hands.” This doctrine requires the court to deny equitable relief to a party having violated good faith with respect to the subject of the claim. The purpose of the doctrine, as elucidated in Colby Furniture Company, Inc v Belinda J Overton is to prevent a party from obtaining relief when that party’s own wrongful conduct has made it such that granting the relief would be against equity and good conscience.
The clean hands doctrine is an affirmative defense that the defendant may claim as has been held in Holy Family Catholic School v Boley, that the plaintiff’s abuse of the account necessitated a finding that the plaintiff had “unclean hands” and that requiring the defendant to continue granting relief would be against good conscience.
The Court said that,
The Supreme Court in umpteen number of cases has laid down that while granting bail to an accused, the Court should also take into consideration the criminal history of the accused. The criminal antecedents of an accused though always not determinative of question whether bail is to be granted or not, yet their relevance cannot be totally ignored.
The parameters for granting anticipatory bail differ significantly from those for regular bail, as they address distinct legal situations and serve unique purposes. The primary objective of anticipatory bail is to protect an individual from arrest in anticipation of being accused of a non bailable offense, especially when the allegations do not appear credible as his arrest could tarnish his image in the society.
The Court observed that,
A crucial consideration is the criminal antecedents of the accused, which must be seriously evaluated. If the accused has a history of criminal behavior, unexplained or otherwise, it could weigh heavily against the grant of anticipatory bail.
Given the preventive nature of anticipatory bail, the parameters and conditions imposed are typically stricter. These measures are necessary to prevent any misuse of the bail and to ensure the accused does not obstruct the course of justice by tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses, or evading trial.
Ultimately, the court seeks to strike a delicate balance between safeguarding individual liberty and upholding the interests of justice and public safety.
It is true that the opposite party no 2 has criminal antecedents and that too has not been explained, as such, the order granting anticipatory bail to the applicant cannot be sustained and him being a practising advocate makes his case worse. His anticipatory bail was hit by Section 438(1)(ii) CrPC also.
“After hearing the parties and taking into consideration that the accused/ respondent no.2 has not mentioned the factum of previous criminal antecedents. Although, it may be true that the closure report may have been filed.
It is further added that the counsel for the accused/respondent no 2 has even not filed the said closure reports or any order indicating the accepting of said closure report in this counter affidavit also and it has also to be considered that the fact finds mentioned in the bail order dated 09.06.2023 whereby it has been stated that the accused/respondent no 2 has no criminal antecedents.
Therefore, the order dated 09.06.2023 passed by Sessions Judge Rampur is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside,” the Court further observed while allowing the bail cancellation application.
The Court set aside the bail order dated 09.06.2023 passed by the Sessions Judge, Rampur.
The post appeared first on .
A Single Bench of Justice Krishan Pahal passed this order while hearing a Criminal Misc bail cancellation application filed by Vinod Singh.
By means of the bail cancellation application, applicant is assailing the order dated 09.06.2023 passed by the Sessions Judge, Rampur in Second Anticipatory Bail Application under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 386, 397, 115, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Rampur in Complaint Case during the pendency of trial.
Counsel for the applicant has stated that the accused/opposite party no 2 has not approached the said Sessions Court with clean hands, as such concealed the factum of criminal antecedents of two previous cases.
The said fact can be verified from the order of the Sessions Judge dated 09.06.2023. It is true that he has been granted bail by the Court but the suppression of the said fact indicates that he is not entitled for anticipatory bail.
Per contra, counsel for the accused/opposite party no 2 has opposed the bail cancellation application on the ground that the accused/opposite party no 2 is an advocate and he has categorically explained his criminal antecedents in both the cases in which closure report was filed and, as such, he did not mention the said fact, but it is true that he is on bail in case he was convicted.
In rebuttal, counsel for the applicant has stated that non mentioning of criminal antecedents clearly goes against him and he has suppressed this fact. He has not approached the said court with clean hands, as such, the order dated 09.06.2023 is liable to be set aside.
The anticipatory bail application of co-accused Sadhna Singh and Sarla was also set aside by this Court on similar grounds for not explaining the criminal antecedents and the said order has been affirmed by the Supreme Court and, as such, the bail cancellation application is liable to be allowed.
The Court noted that,
The clean hands doctrine states that one “who comes into equity must come with clean hands.” This doctrine requires the court to deny equitable relief to a party having violated good faith with respect to the subject of the claim. The purpose of the doctrine, as elucidated in Colby Furniture Company, Inc v Belinda J Overton is to prevent a party from obtaining relief when that party’s own wrongful conduct has made it such that granting the relief would be against equity and good conscience.
The clean hands doctrine is an affirmative defense that the defendant may claim as has been held in Holy Family Catholic School v Boley, that the plaintiff’s abuse of the account necessitated a finding that the plaintiff had “unclean hands” and that requiring the defendant to continue granting relief would be against good conscience.
The Court said that,
The Supreme Court in umpteen number of cases has laid down that while granting bail to an accused, the Court should also take into consideration the criminal history of the accused. The criminal antecedents of an accused though always not determinative of question whether bail is to be granted or not, yet their relevance cannot be totally ignored.
The parameters for granting anticipatory bail differ significantly from those for regular bail, as they address distinct legal situations and serve unique purposes. The primary objective of anticipatory bail is to protect an individual from arrest in anticipation of being accused of a non bailable offense, especially when the allegations do not appear credible as his arrest could tarnish his image in the society.
The Court observed that,
A crucial consideration is the criminal antecedents of the accused, which must be seriously evaluated. If the accused has a history of criminal behavior, unexplained or otherwise, it could weigh heavily against the grant of anticipatory bail.
Given the preventive nature of anticipatory bail, the parameters and conditions imposed are typically stricter. These measures are necessary to prevent any misuse of the bail and to ensure the accused does not obstruct the course of justice by tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses, or evading trial.
Ultimately, the court seeks to strike a delicate balance between safeguarding individual liberty and upholding the interests of justice and public safety.
It is true that the opposite party no 2 has criminal antecedents and that too has not been explained, as such, the order granting anticipatory bail to the applicant cannot be sustained and him being a practising advocate makes his case worse. His anticipatory bail was hit by Section 438(1)(ii) CrPC also.
“After hearing the parties and taking into consideration that the accused/ respondent no.2 has not mentioned the factum of previous criminal antecedents. Although, it may be true that the closure report may have been filed.
It is further added that the counsel for the accused/respondent no 2 has even not filed the said closure reports or any order indicating the accepting of said closure report in this counter affidavit also and it has also to be considered that the fact finds mentioned in the bail order dated 09.06.2023 whereby it has been stated that the accused/respondent no 2 has no criminal antecedents.
Therefore, the order dated 09.06.2023 passed by Sessions Judge Rampur is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside,” the Court further observed while allowing the bail cancellation application.
The Court set aside the bail order dated 09.06.2023 passed by the Sessions Judge, Rampur.
The post appeared first on .