IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
Mohd. Ishtiyak Khan - Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. and Another - Opposite Parties
Criminal Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 177 of 2023
Decided On : 17-10-2023
Fraud - Bail Cancellation - Indian Evidence Act - Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC - 44
Fact of the Case:
The bail cancellation application was filed by the complainant to cancel the bail granted to the accused. The complainant alleged that the accused obtained the bail by misleading the court and concealing the fact of his criminal antecedents.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accused had concealed his criminal history and obtained the bail by playing fraud on the court. The court set aside the previous order granting anticipatory bail to the accused and allowed the bail cancellation application.
Issues: The main issue was whether the accused obtained the bail by misleading the court and committing fraud, and whether the bail should be cancelled on that basis.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Section 44 of the Indian Evidence Act, which allows a party to show that a judgment obtained by fraud may be set aside. The court held that the accused had not come with clean hands and had obtained the previous order by concealing his criminal antecedents, thus playing fraud on the court.
Final Decision: The court allowed the bail cancellation application, set aside the previous order granting anticipatory bail to the accused, and granted two weeks' time for the accused to surrender before the trial court.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Sanjay Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Arun Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The instant bail cancellation application has been filed on behalf of the applicant (complainant) with the prayer to cancel the bail granted to opposite party no. 2 by this Court on 9.12.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. No. 10933 of 2022, in Criminal Case No. 2177 of 2018, relating to Case Crime No. 303 of 2018, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Kurra, District Mainpuri.
RIVAL CONTENTIONS:
CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT:
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the said order is liable to be cancelled, as it was garnered by the opposite party no.2 by misleading the Court and concealing the fact of seven criminal antecedents of the applicant. Learned counsel has next stated that the said order itself indicates as follows:-
4. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgement of the Apex Court passed in A.V. Papayya Sastry & others vs. Government of A.P. & Others, Appeal (Civil) No. 5097 of 2004, wherein it has been held as follows:-
5. It was also opined in the said judgement that a judgement, decree or order obtained by fraud by the first Court or by the final court has to be treated as a nullity by every Court, superior or inferior. It can be challenged in any Court at any time, in appeal, revision, writ or even in collateral proceedings. Lord Denning had observed that in the leading case of Lazarus Estates Ltd. v. Beasley, (1956) 1 All ER 341 : (1956) 1 QB 702 : (1956) 2 WLR 502, that "No judgment of a court, no order of a Minister, can be allowed to stand, if it has been obtained by fraud."
6. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgement of the judgement of the Apex Court passed in Puran vs. Rambilas and another, 2001 SCC (Cri) 1124, wherein it was held as under:-
"If, however, a Court of Session had admitted an accused person to bail, the State has two options. It may move the Sessions Judge if certain new circumsta
A judgment obtained by fraud may be set aside under Section 44 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Concealment of criminal history while obtaining a bail order is not sustainable under Section 44 of the Indian Evidence Act.
The court emphasized the necessity of disclosing criminal antecedents in bail applications, particularly for legal professionals, and upheld the clean hands doctrine in the context of anticipatory ba....
Cancellation of anticipatory bail requires substantial grounds; mere non-compliance with settlement terms does not justify cancellation without evidence of misconduct.
Bail once granted to an accused person cannot be cancelled unless he violates the condition of the bail or does any act, deed, or thing to impede a fair trial of the case concerned.
The court emphasized the need for supervening circumstances or overwhelming evidence to warrant cancellation of bail, and highlighted the importance of not interfering with personal liberty without s....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.