Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.
Soni - Applicant
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another - Opposite Parties
Criminal MISC. Bail Cancellation Application No. 13 of 2024
Decided On : 29-05-2024
CANCELLATION OF BAIL - ANTICIPATORY BAIL - Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. - The court discussed the provisions of Section 439(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code regarding the cancellation of anticipatory bail. It emphasized the importance of full disclosure of facts in court proceedings and the consequences of suppressing material information. The court interpreted the legal framework surrounding anticipatory bail, noting that it can be granted only when the applicant is not in custody. The court's decision was influenced by the lack of evidence supporting the allegations against the opposite party and the established legal principle that a party must come to court with clean hands.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant sought cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the opposite party in a case involving serious allegations, including attempted murder and property disputes. The FIR alleged that the opposite party forcibly took possession of land and set the informant's father ablaze. However, the opposite party claimed he was falsely implicated due to an ongoing property dispute that had been resolved in his favor.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the FIR lacked credible evidence, as there were no eyewitnesses and the property dispute had been settled legally. The court noted that the informant had concealed relevant facts and made false allegations, which undermined her credibility. The court concluded that the anticipatory bail was justified and that the application for cancellation lacked merit.
Issues: Whether the anticipatory bail granted to the opposite party should be canceled based on alleged concealment of facts and the nature of the allegations in the FIR.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that anticipatory bail can only be granted when the applicant is not in custody. It emphasized the necessity for parties to disclose all material facts and the consequences of suppressing information. The court also reiterated that a litigant must approach the court with clean hands, and any attempt to mislead the court would result in denial of relief.
Final Decision: The application for cancellation of the bail order dated 19.12.2023 was dismissed, affirming the grant of anticipatory bail to the opposite party.
JUDGMENT :
(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.) :
1. Heard Shri Sumit Kumar Srivastava, the learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Anant Pratap Singh, the learned AGA for the State and Shri Murli Manohar Srivastava, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party No.2.
2. By means of the instant application filed under Section 439 (2) Cr.P.C., the applicant has sought cancellation of an order dated 19.12.2023 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.2945 of 2023, whereby this Court had granted anticipatory bail to the opposite party no. 2 in Case Crime No.214 of 2023 under Sections 143, 147, 148, 307, 326, 447, 506 IPC, Police Station-Sohra Mau, District-Unnao.
3. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 12.12.2023 against ten persons stating that the accused persons forcibly took possession of the land of the informant's father. They were raising a boundary wall around the land for the past two days. They poured petrol on her father on 12.12.2023 and set him ablaze. The opposite party no. 2 had contended that he has falsely been implicated in the present case for the reason that a dispute regarding the land in question was going on in the Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Hassanganj, Unnao, instituted by Surya Kumar Singh – uncle of the opposite party no. 2, which was decided in his favour by means of a judgment and order dated 17.11.2023, whereby a report submitted by the Revenue Inspector was accepted and demarcation was ordered to be carried out on the spot. On 30.11.2023, the Tehsildar had passed an order constituting a team of officials for carrying out demarcation on the spot and accordingly demarcation was carried out on 09.12.2023. After demarcation of the disputed land on the spot, the uncle of the opposite party no. 2 had secured the disputed land by raising a boundary wall around the land on 09.12.2023 itself. The victim had committed self immolation and newspaper reports to this effect were published online on 12.12.2023 at 12:12:27 i.e. immediately after the incident.
4. This Court took into consideration the aforesaid facts and noted that although the F.I.R states that the victim was saved by persons present nearby and some passersby and he was taken to the hospital, statement of none of those persons had been recorded by the investigating officer. This Court found that there was a property dispute between the parties, which had been settled by the competent authority by ordering demarcation and demarcation had actually being carried out on the spot, but the informant had alleged that there was a property dispute due to which the accused persons had forcibly taken possession of the land in dispute without making any mention of the order passed by the competent court. There is no eye witness of the incident as alleged in the F.I.R. The dispute having already been settled in favour of the accused persons, prima facie there appears to be no motive for them to cause the incident. No independent person has given statement implicating the opposite party no. 2. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, this Court granted anticipatory bail to the opposite party no. 2.
5. The ground on which the applicant is seeking cancellation of the order dated 19.12.2023 is concealment of material facts by the opposite party No.2 in as much as it was not brought to the notice of the Court at the time of hearing of the application on 19.12.2023 that the opposite party No.2 had already been arrested at about 23:50 hours on 18.12.2023.
6. The opposite party No.2 has filed a counter affidavit bringing on record a copy of the order dated 17.11.2023 passed by the SDM, Hassanganj, Unnao accepting the demarcation report submitted by the Revenue Inspector regarding the property which was in dispute between the parties.
7. The applicant has filed a rejoinder affidavit running into 236 pages. The applicant has disclosed her qualification to be merely literate and her occupation to be
A party seeking relief from the court must disclose all material facts and cannot benefit from suppressing information; anticipatory bail is not maintainable if the applicant is already in custody.
The applicant, who concealed facts and filed a false affidavit, and made a mockery of the orders of the lower court by avoiding the process of summon, bailable warrant, non-bailable warrant, and the ....
Grant of bail though being a discretionary order, calls for exercise of such discretion in a judicious manner and is dependent upon contextual facts of the matter being dealt with by Court.
The settlement agreement terms must clearly specify the obligations of the parties to avoid ambiguity and potential disputes.
Anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC is an extraordinary remedy, granted only in exceptional circumstances, particularly when the applicant is not a proclaimed offender.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to cancel bail based on fraudulent misrepresentation and the importance of supervening circumstances in such decisions.
The significance of statements recorded under Section 164 and Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code in considering applications for anticipatory bail cancellation.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
