Court No. - 77

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL

APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6955 of 2020

Applicant :- Kamal Kumar Srivastava

Opposite Party :- State of U.P.

Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Saxena

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

List revised. No one has appeared on behalf of the applicant to

press this application.

Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned AGA for the State is present.

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory

bail in Case Crime No. 883 of 2018, under Sections 406, 420,

409, 467, 468, 471 IPC, P.S. Baradari, District-Bareilly, with

the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released

on bail.

Perusal of the order sheet goes to show that earlier on

05.11.2020, an interim anticipatory bail was granted to the

applicant. Subsequently, the interim order has been extended

from time to time till 06.09.2022. Though counter affidavit has

been filed by the learned AGA for the State, but no rejoinder

affidavit has been filed by learned counsel for the applicant.

Today, also no one has appeared to argue the case.

Learned AGA for the State, on the basis of instructions, submits

that the applicant has criminal history of two cases, which are

with regard to offence of similar nature. However, in para 12, it

has been stated that the applicant has no criminal antecedent at

all. The applicant has never been convicted in any offence till

date.

The applicant has suppressed the criminal history of two cases

and has obtained the interim order by concealing his credentials

and giving false affidavit that he has no previous criminal

history. Thus, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while granting

interim order dated 05.11.2020 to the applicant, has also taken

into consideration one fact that the applicant has no criminal

history.

As the applicant has not approached this Court with clean hand

and filed this application suppressing the material facts in sheer

disobedience of the orders of Supreme Court as well as this

Court. Therefore, he/she does not deserve any indulgence by

this Court.

The courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the

parties. One, who comes to the court, must come with clean

hands and no material facts should be concealed. I am

constrained to hold that more often the process of the court is

being abused by unscrupulous litigants to achieve their

nefarious design. I have no hesitation in saying that a person,

whose case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the

court. He/she can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the

litigation. The judicial process cannot become an instrument of

oppression or abuse or a means in the process of the Court to

subvert justice, for the reason that the Court exercises its

jurisdiction, only in furtherance of justice.

The Apex Court in the case of Arunima Baruah Vs. Union of

India reported in (2007)6 SCC 120, has held that it is trite law

that to enable the Court to refuse to exercise its discretionary

jurisdiction suppression must of material fact. Material fact

would mean material for the purpose of determination of the lis.

It was further held that a person invoking the discretionary

jurisdiction of the court cannot be allowed to approach it with a

pair of dirty hands.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dalip Singh Vs.

State of Uttar Pradesh and others, reported in (2010)2 SCC

114 came down heavily on unscrupulous litigants by holding

that it is now well established that 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.

Having considered the factual aspect of the case and the dictum

of the Supreme Court, I am of the considered view that the

applicant has misused the process of law by filing false affidavit

before this Court suppressing the material facts and documents

and misled the Court. Honesty, fairness, purity of mind should

b