Wednesday, September 28, 2022

Punjab and Haryana High Court upholds trial court’s order denying anticipatory bail to accused for misleading court

Want create site? Find Free WordPress Themes and plugins.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court while observing that the accused had tried to mislead the Court by concealing facts regarding dismissal of his earlier plea recently upheld a trial court’s order denying anticipatory bail to an accused.

A Single Bench of Justice Justice Pankaj Jain passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Deen Mohd.

Apprehending his arrest in FIR dated 27th February, 2022, registered under Sections 13(1) and 13(3) of Haryana Gauvansh Sanrakshan and Gausamvardhan Act, 2015 and Section 11 of Prevention of Animals of Cruelty Act, 1959 (later on added Section 120-B of the IPC and Sections 181/192 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988) at Police Station Sadar Palwal, District Palwal, petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail.

The Court noted that,

The petitioner approached the Additional Sessions Judge, Palwal for pre-arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. While declining the same, Sessions Judge observed as under :-

“2. Along with application, the affidavit of Deen Mohd (applicant) is attached wherein he has deposed that no other application is pending or decided by this Court or any other Court. It is admitted that the first application for anticipatory bail filed by the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn. This fact has not been disclosed by the applicant in his affidavit.”

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the reason recorded by the Sessions Court is not sufficient to decline the bail. No other reason having been assigned by the Sessions Court, the order deserves to be set aside and the petitioner may be granted concession of pre-arrest bail.

“Admittedly, the petitioner concealed the fact of filing first application seeking pre-arrest bail and dismissal thereof from the Court. Counsel for the petitioner very casually states that, that alone cannot be a reason to dismiss the bail. The law is well settled that where a process is “ex debito justitiae” the Court would refuse to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant where the application is found to be wanting in bona fides.

Apex Court in the case of Hari Narain vs Badri Dass, AIR 1963 S.C 1558 approved of the said principle and the same was followed in the case of Welcome Hotel vs State of Andhra Pradesh, (1983) 4 SCC 575 wherein it was held that a party which has mislead the Court, is not entitled to any consideration at the hands of the Court”, the Court held.

“In the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner has not approached the Court seeking relief of pre-arrest bail with the clean hands and the Lower Court was justified in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner”, the Court observed while dismissing the petition.

Did you find apk for android? You can find new Free Android Games and apps.

News Update