A second anticipatory bail application is non-maintainable if the petitioner conceals prior court orders and fails to comply with commitments to surrender, reflecting bad faith toward the court.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 438 - Anticipatory bail - The petitioner sought anticipatory bail for FIR No.145 under Sections 148, 149, 323, 302, 324 and 506 IPC - The Court dismissed the second anticipatory bail application as not maintainable, citing concealment of prior orders and failure to comply with undertakings given to the court - The petitioner misled the Court, constituting contemptuous conduct. (Paras 1, 21, 24)

(B) Anticipatory Bail - Maintainability - A second plea for anticipatory bail becomes non-maintainable if the petitioner fails to surrender per prior court undertakings or misrepresents facts to the Court. (Paras 21, 24)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner faced charges including homicide. The first bail application was withdrawn, subsequent applications were based on procedural complexities, yet revealed non-compliance with earlier orders and misrepresentation in court. (Paras 1-3, 12-20)

Findings of Court:
The petitioner concealed prior court orders and undertook to surrender but failed to do so, leading to the view that the bail application was a frivolous attempt to evade legal proceedings. (Paras 21-24)

Issues: The principal issue was the maintainability of the second anticipatory bail petition in light of the petitioner's prior conduct and concealment of pertinent facts. (Paras 21-22)

Ratio Decidendi: The Court highlighted that applicants must approach with clean hands; misleading the Court negates the credibility of claims for relief. A history of non-compliance influences the maintainability of future applications. (Paras 22-23)

Result: Petition dismissed with a cost of Rs.1,00,000/- imposed on counsel.

Table of Content
1. overview of the case and charges (Para 1 , 2)
2. maintainability of second anticipatory bail application (Para 3 , 4)
3. petitioner's concealment of prior undertakings (Para 5 , 10 , 12)
4. reasons for dismissing the bail application and imposing costs. (Para 6)
5. court observations on conduct and compliance with previous orders. (Para 8 , 11 , 13 , 15)
6. consequences of misleading the court (Para 16 , 22)
7. distinction from precedent case law (Para 17 , 18)
8. implications of misrepresentation in legal proceedings (Para 19 , 23)
9. dismissal of application and imposition of costs (Para 24 , 25)

JUDGMENT

Mr. Sandeep Moudgil, J. (Oral)

The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked for the second time under Section 438 Cr.P.C., for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.145, dated 03.05.2021, under Sections 148 , 149, 323, 302 324 and 506 IPC, registered at Police Station Nissing, District Karnal.

2. The facts as has been unfolded could be narrated out on perusal of the FIR, which is reproduced hereinbelow:-

"The copy of statement is as:- Azad Singh son of Baghel Singh caste jat sikh resident of Ballu aged 28 years Mo. 97295-66520 stated that I am resident of the above said address and I do the agriculture work. 2/3 days before today, Kuldeep Kaur, mother of Sandeep Singh and his Jija Manjit Singh gave threat to kill me and my elder uncle Sh. Arjun Singh. On 13th April, Sukha Singh son of Kala Singh gave threat that "we are with Sandeep Singh and we will kill you". Today, on dated 03.05.2021, in the morning at 7.30 A.M., my father was gone on motor cycle for cutting grass in fields. I and my elder uncle were going behind him in Buggi to the fields. As we reached near our field, then we were at a distance of one Killa in our field and in the meantime, one motor cycle and one car was stopped in front of our field and Sandeep Singh, Mehtab Singh son of Jagtar Singh, resident of Behlolpur, Gulab Singh son of Gurmukh Singh, resident of Behlolpur, Lakha Singh son of Kishna, resident of Behlolpur, Sukha Singh son of Kala Singh, resident of Balu and Gurlal Singh son of Resham, Singh resident of Dera Balu Bajida Road from the other passage and Virender Singh son of Sukha Singh, resident of Umedpur Police Station, Seewan had come and all the above said persons were armed with swords and gandasi (sickle) and sticks in their hands and on coming, they started giving beatings to my father. I and my elder uncle had gone by running there and we raised noise "Killed Killed". On seeing us, they were saying that, "we had to kill him, but he has been saved and injuries have been received to my father on his both legs, on head and on hand. Earlier also, we filed court cases against Sandeep Singh, in which, sentence has been awarded to Sandeep Singh. He puts pressure on us again and again for compromising in these cases. The above said Sandeep Singh, Mehtab Singh, Gulab Singh, Virender Singh, Lakha Singh, Sukha Singh, Gurlal Singh, have caused wrongful injuries to my father. Legal action may be taken against them. I have given my statement to you, heard which is correct."

3. Faced with the query that how the second anticipatory bail application is maintainable, Mr. Prashant Bansal, Advocate asserts that the second anticipatory bail applications of the co-accused namely Sukha Singh bearing CRM-M-25065- 2023 and Lakhwinder Singh bearing CRM-M-47351-2023, have also been entertained by the Co-ordinate Bench, wherein interim protection have been granted vide orders dated 08.08.2023 and 20.09.2023 respectively.

4. He drew attention of this Court to the part of the said order urging that the first anticipatory bail application preferred by Sukha Singh and Lakhwinder Singh were also withdrawn on account of pendency of criminal revision petition No.CRR-1524-2022, wherein proceedings before the trial Court were stayed and on dismissal of the said criminal revision petition vide order dated 12.05.2023 (Annexure P-7), the second