A litigant must approach the court with clean hands; suppression of material facts disqualifies them from receiving judicial relief.

ORDER :

ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.

“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.”[Dalip Singh Vs. State of UP (2010) 2 SCC 14]

“The stream of administration of justice has to remain unpolluted so that purity of Court’s atmosphere may give vitality to all the organs of the State. Polluters of judicial firmament are, therefore, required to be well taken care of to maintain the sublimity of Court’s environment; so also to enable it to administer justice fairly and to the satisfaction of all concerned.”[Chandra Shashi Vs. Anil Kumar Verma (1995) 1 SCC 421]

Whether any party to the litigation, approaching this Court, with unclean hands by suppressing and concealing material facts is entitled for any relief or not? Whether the principles of parity in seeking bail can be applied as a straight jacket formula for granting bail under such circumstances? These issues are required to be decided by this Court in this bunch of applications.

1. Pursuant to FIR No.234/2023 reported with Police Station Jawahar Nagar, Kota City, District Kota, after investigation, the police submitted charge sheet against four accused persons namely Indira Kumari (herein after referred to as Indira Kumari), Anuj Pokharna, Pawan Meena and Rishabh Raj for the offences under Section 302 & 34 IPC with the allegation that these four persons are culprit of causing murder of the deceased Ganesh on 07.09.2023. The accused Indira Kumari was granted bail by this Court on 07.03.2024, and on the basis of said order, the co-accused/petitioners Anuj Pokharna & Rishabh Raj are seeking the same bail order only on the basis of parity that evidence against all the four accused is same, hence the indulgence of bail be granted to them also.

2. Counsel for the petitioners Anuj Pokharna and Rishabh Raj submits that their case is at par with the case of co-accused Indira Kumari to whom indulgence of bail has been granted by this Court vide order dated 07.03.2024. Counsel submits that as per the statements of the eye witness namely Sumit Sharma and Mohammed Kaif recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C, the presence of each and every accused including the co-accused Indira Kumari has been established at the spot, where the incident has occurred. Counsel submits that under these circumstances the cases of the present petitioners are at par with the case of Indira Kumari. Hence the petitioners are also entitled to get the same indulgence of bail on the ground of parity.

3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and submitted that at the time of argument in the bail application of the co-accused Indira Kumari, the correct facts were not brought into the notice of this Court, and the statements of the eye witnesses Sumit Sharma and Mohammed Kaif recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C were not submitted with the record of the bail application of Indira Kumari. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that an argument was raised on behalf of the co-accused Indira Kumari that she was not present on the spot. Hence, keeping in view this material aspect of the matter, indulgence of bail has been granted to her. Counsel submits that this Court vide order dated 20.03.2024 issued show cause notice to the co-accused Indira Kumari for cancellation of her bail, for such an act of misrepresentation and suppression of material facts and evidence against her. Counsel submits that under these circumstances the order of grant of bail to the co-accused Indira is liable to be cancelled and the order dated 07.03.2024, passed by this Court granting bail to her be re-called.

4. The counsel for the co-accused Indira Kumari submits that when the statements of these two eye witnesses namely Sumit Sharma and Mohammed Kaif were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C they have not alleged anything against the co-accused Indira Kumari and her presence was not shown in their statements and in FIR. Couns