IMPORTANT POINT
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 bail.

JUDGMENT :

Krishan Pahal, J.

1. List has been revised.

2. Rejoinder affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

3. Heard Ms. Gunjan Jadwani, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Shubham Kesarwani, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as Sri Ashutosh Srivasava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

4. By means of the present bail cancellation application, applicant is assailing the order dated 09.06.2023 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Rampur in Second Anticipatory Bail Application No. 906 of 2023 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 386, 397, 115, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Rampur in Complaint Case No. 5206 of 2022 during the pendency of trial.

5. Learned 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 passed in Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 906 of 2023. It is true that he has been granted bail by this Court but the suppression of the said fact indicates that he is not entitled for anticipatory bail.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the accused/opposite party no.2 has opposed the present 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.

7. In rebuttal, learned 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.

8. 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.

9. The Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Yadav vs State of U.P. AIR 2022 SC 2514 , has dealt with the issue as follows:

“30.This Court has reiterated in several instances that bail once granted, should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during trial. Having said that, in case of cancellation of bail, very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing cancellation of bail (which was already granted). A two-Judge Bench of this Court in Dolat Ram And Others v. State of Haryana (1995) I SCC 349 laid down the grounds for cancellation of bail which are:-

(i) interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of Justice

(ii) evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice

(iii) abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner

(iv) Possibility of accused absconding

(v) Likelihood of/actual misuse of bail

(vi) Likelihood of the accused tampering with the evidence or threatening witnesses.

31. It is no doubt true that cancellation of bail cannot be limited to the occurrence of supervening circumstances. This Court certainly has the inherent powers and discretion to cancel the bail of an accused even in the absence of supervening circumstances. Following are the illustrative circumstances where the bail can be cancelled:-

a) Where the court granting bail takes into account irrelevant material of substantial nature and not trivial nature while ignoring relevant material on record.

b) Where the court granting bail overlooks the influential position of the accused in comparison to the vic