# Anup Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2023) 3 ILRA 1083
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-02-16
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 4302 of 2023
- **Bench:** Shiv Shanker Prasad
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/anup-kumar-singh-v-state-of-u-p-anr-49777
- **Pages:** 13

## Headnote

Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 482-Application
filed
for
quashing
the
order
rejecting
anticipatory bail of the Applicant -on untenable
grounds-as Applicant has not breached any
condition of the anticipatory bail-proceedings
u/s 82 Cr.P.C. initiated after issuance of
summons/bailable-warrant/non-bailable
warrant-two more application u/s 482 already
filed-concealed.

Dismissed with cost. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,840 of 41,477. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39840 for what follows._

3 All. Anup Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1083
(2023) 3 ILRA 1083
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.02.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 4302 of 2023

Anup Kumar Singh ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Bhiguram Ji, Sri Ashotosh Kumar
Nishad, Sri Prabhat Kumar, Sri Sandip
Kumar

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 482-Application
filed
for
quashing
the
order
rejecting
anticipatory bail of the Applicant -on untenable
grounds-as Applicant has not breached any
condition of the anticipatory bail-proceedings
u/s 82 Cr.P.C. initiated after issuance of
summons/bailable-warrant/non-bailable
warrant-two more application u/s 482 already
filed-concealed.

Dismissed with cost. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. Vinod Kumar, IAS Vs U.O.I. & ors. in Writ
Petition (s) (Criminal) No(s). 255 of 2021
decided on 29th June, 2021

2. Dolat Ram & ors. Vs The St. of Har. reported
in (1994) Spp. 6 S.C.R

3. St. of M. P. Vs Pradeep Sharma reported in
(2014) 2 SCC 171

4. Shanker Prasad Vs St. of Bihar AIR OnLine
2021 SC 915

5. Anil Khadiwala Vs St. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
reported in 2019 (17) SC 1002

6. Superintendent And Remembrancer Vs Mohan
Singh & ors., AIR 1975 SC 1002

7. M/s. Tilokchand Motichand & ors. Vs H.B.
Munshi & Anr.,AIR 1970 SC 898;

8. St. of Har. Vs Karnal Distillery,AIR 1977 SC
781;

9. Sabia Khan & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors. (1999)
1 SCC 271

10. Agriculture & Process Food Products Vs
Oswal Agro Furane & ors.,AIR 1996 SC
1947

11. King Vs General Commissioner (1917) 1 KB
486

12. Abdul Rahman Vs Prasony Bai & anr., AIR
2003 SC 718;

13. S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. Vs St. of
Bihar & ors., (2004) 7 SCC 166

14. K.D. Sharma Vs SAIL, (2008) 12 SCC 481

15. G. Jayashree Vs Bhagwandas S. Patel (2009)
3 SCC 141

16. Dhananjay Sharma Vs St. of Har. & ors.,
reported in AIR 1995 SC 1795

17. Dhananjay Sharma Vs St. of Har. & ors., AIR
1995 SC 1795

18. Sabia Khan & Ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors.,
(1999) 1 SCC 271

19. Lavesh Vs St. of (NCT of Delhi (2012) 8 SCC
730
(Delivered by Hon'ble Shiv Shanker
Prasad, J.)

1. This application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the applicant
for the following relief:
1084 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
"PRAYER

It is, therefore, most respectfully
prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly
be pleased to allow this application and
quash
the
impugned
order
dated
05/01/2023 passed by District and Session
Judge
Mirzapur
and
cancelled
the
Anticipatory bail Application No. 529/2022
Surendra Kumar V/S Anup Kumar Singh in
case crime no. 30/2021 U/S 419, 420, 467,
471 I.P.C., P.S.- Kotwali Katra, District
Mirzapur, against the applicant and It is
also restore the Anticipatory bail, which
has already been granted vide dated
15/09/2022 in case crime no. 30/2021 U/S
419, 420, 467, 471 I.P.C., P.S.- Kotwali
Katra, District- Mirzapur till the disposal
of the Trial.

It is also prayed that this Hon'ble
Court may kindly pleased to stay the further
proceedings in case crime no. 30/2021 U/S
419, 420, 467, 471 I.P.C., P.S.- Kotwali
Katra,
District-
Mirzapur,
otherwise
applicant/petitioner suffer irreparable loss
and injury, and/or pass such other and
further order which this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper under the facts and
circumstances of the case."

2. This case is classic example of how
a person, who is an accused wastes the
precious time of the High Court by filing
petition/application
one
after
another;
concealing the material fact as well as
avoiding the process of Court like nonbailable warrant, proceedings initiated
under Section 82 Cr.P.C.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for
the applicant and Mr. Jitendra Kumar
Jaiswal, learned A.G.A. for the State.

CASE OF THE APPLICANT

4. Earlier the applicant has lodged a
First Information Report dated 6th March,
2020 against the opposite party no 2 which
came to be registered as Case Crime No. 53
of 2020 under Sections 419, 420, 468 &
471 I.P.C. Police Station- Kotwali Katra,
District- Mirzapur, a copy of which has
been enclosed as Annexure No.1 to the
affidavit
accompanying
the
present
application.

5. As a counter blast to the aforesaid
FIR, opposite party no. 2 lodge the First
Information Report on 21st February, 2021
against the applicant which was registered
as case crime no. 30 of 2021 under Sections
419, 420, 468 and 471 I.P.C., Police
Station-Kotwali Katra, District- Mirzapur,
a copy of which has been enclosed as
Annexure No.2 to this affidavit.

6. After lodgement of the aforesaid
FIR against the applicant, he moved an
Anticipatory Bail Application No.1225 of
2021 which was rejected by the Sessions
Judge Mirzapur vide dated 19.10.2021 by
observing that no apprehension has been
established in the bail application. Not
being satisfied with the aforesaid order, the
applicant moved an Anticipatory bail
application
No.4527/2022
before
this
Court. The said bail application has been
dismissed as not pressed by this Court vide
order dated 28th July, 2022. For ready
reference, order dated 28th July, 2022 reads
as follows:

"Heard
Sri
Pavan
Kishore,
learned counsel for the applicant, learned
AGA and Sri Shailesh Pandey, learned
counsel for the complainant.

At the very outset learned counsel
for the applicant has submitted that he does
not want to press this application as the
3 All. Anup Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1085
applicant is willing to appear before the
learned court below where the proceedings
are pending consideration.

Accordingly,
the
present
application is dismissed being not pressed.

Consigned to records."

7. After taking some time, the
applicant filed second anticipatory bail
application before court below on 2nd
September, 2022, which was numbered as
Anticipatory
bail
application
No.
1558/2022. This second bail application
was allowed by the court below vide order
dated
15th
September,
2022.
After
obtaining the said order, the applicant was
following each and every condition as
mentioned in the order of court below
granting anticipatory bail to the applicant.

8.

It
is
surprising
that
the
informant/opposite party no.2 filed a bail
cancellation application before court below
on 8th November, 2022, which was not
pressed by informant, whereafter again on
9th November, 2022, he filed second bail
cancellation application Under Section 439
(2) Cr.P.C., which was registered as Bail
Cancellation Application no.529 of 2022.
The court below without going through the
fact of the case and without following due
procedure known to law has rejected the
anticipatory
bail
application
of
the
applicant vide order dated 5th January,
2023.

9. Learned counsel for the applicant
submits that as per settled law, if an
accused breaches any condition mentioned
in the order granting anticipatory bail to
him earlier, the court of law granting the
same can reject the bail application under
Section 439 Cr.P.C., while in the present
case the applicant has not breached any of
the conditions mentioned in the order dated
15th September, 2022 granted anticipatory
bail to the applicant. In support of his case,
learned counsel for the applicant has placed
reliance upon the judgments of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the cases of Daulat Ram
and Others v. State of Haryana (1995) 1
SCC 349, State (Delhi Admn) v. Sanjay
Gandhi (1978) 2 SCC 411, Kashmira Singh
v. Duman Singh (1996) 4 SCC 693, CBI v.
Subramani Gopalkrishnan (2011) 5 SCC
296, X v. State of Telangana. (2020) 16
SCC 511), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has opined that very cogent and
overwhelming circumstances are necessary
for an order directing cancellation of bail. It
has further been opined that bail granted
cannot be cancelled in a mechanical
manner without considering whether any
supervening circumstances have rendered it
in conducive to allow fair trial. Learned
counsel for the applicant, therefore, submits
that the court below without following
provisions of law has cancelled the
anticipatory bail of the applicant, which is
liable to be quashed.

10. On the cumulative strength of the
aforesaid, learned counsel for the applicant
submits that this Court may allow this
application and quash the impugned order
dated 5th January, 2023 passed by District
and Session Judge Mirzapur cancelling the
anticipatory
bail
application
of
the
applicant and restore the order dated 15th
September, 2022 granting anticipatory bail
to the applicant.

CONCEALMENT
OF
MATERIAL FACT

11. Mr. Jitendra Kumar Jaiswal,
learned A.G.A. has raised preliminary
objection to the maintainability of the
1086 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
present application by submitting that this
is the third applications filed by the
applicant under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Earlier
he has filed two applications under Section
482 Cr.P.C. being Application U/S Nos.
16846 of 2021 (Anoop Singh Vs. State)
and 23322 of 2021 (Anoop Singh Vs. State
of U.p. & Another) but he has concealed
the said fact in the present application. In
support of his plea, he has drawn attention
of the Court to paragraph no.2 of the
affidavit accompanying the present

"2. That this is a first Criminal
Misc.
Application
(482)
before
this
Hon'ble court and no any Cri. Writ
Petition, Cri. Misc. application (482) is
pending before this Hon'ble court or any
other court or Lucknow Bench."

12. Learned A.G.A., therefore,
submits that since the applicant has not
approached this Court with clean hands by
filing this third application under Section
482 Cr.P.C., it is liable to be dismissed
with exemplary cost for concealment of
material fact.

13. To the aforesaid submissions of
the learned A.G.A., though the learned
counsel for the applicant has placed the
copies of the orders passed in the earlier
two applications of the applicant before this
Court, but on a pointed query made by this
Court as to why he has concealed the
material fact, he could not answer the same.

MAINTAINABILITY

14. Mr. Jitendra Kumar Jaiswal,
learned A.G.A. has also raised preliminary
objection to the maintainability of the
present application by submitting that this
is the third application filed by the
applicant under Section 482 Cr.P.C. He,
therefore,
submits
that
successive
applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
cannot be entertained and this third
application is liable to be rejected as not
maintainable.

15. In reply, learned counsel for the
applicant submits that it is no doubt true
that this is the third application filed by the
applicant under Section 482 Cr.P.C. but the
same is not maintainable in view of the
judgment and order of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Vinod Kumar, IAS vs.
Union of India & Others in Writ Petition
(s) (Criminal) No(s). 255 of 2021 decided
on 29th June, 2021. The relevant portion of
the said judgment has been referred by the
learned counsel for the applicant, which is
being quoted herein-below:

"The law on point as held by this
Court
in
"Superintendent
and
Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West
Bengal Vs. Mohan Singh & Ors." reported
in SCC (1975) 3 706 is clear that dismissal
of an earlier 482 petition does not bar
filing of subsequent petition under Section
482, in case the facts so justify."

WHETHER
THE
APPLICANT
IS
ENTITLED
TO
GRANT
ANTICIPATORY
BAIL
WHEN AS A MATTER OF FACT
NON-BAILABLE
WARRANT
AS
WELL AS PROCEEDINGS UNDER
SECTION 82 CR.P.C. HAVE BEEN
INITIATED AGAINST HIM?

16. It is submitted by learned counsel
for the applicant that the applicant is
innocent and has no concern with the
present matter. It is further submitted that
although proceedings under Section 82
Cr.P.C. have been initiated against the
applicant yet no prima facie case is made
3 All. Anup Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1087
out against the applicant. It is further
submitted that mere issuance of non-baible
warrant and initiation of proceedings under
Section 82 Cr.P.C. can be the basis for
cancelling the anticipatory bail earlier
granted to the applicant. Very cogent and
overwhelming circumstances are necessary
for an order directing the cancellation of
bail already granted. In support of his case
learned counsel for the applicant has placed
reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Dolat Ram &
Ors. Vs. The State of Haryana reported in
(1994) Spp. 6 S.C.R. It is also submitted
that he has fully cooperated with the
investigating agency. He was not arrested
during investigation. It is further submitted
that if applicant is allowed on anticipatory
bail, he will cooperate with the Trial Court.
There is no chance of him fleeing away
from the Courts of law. There is no
criminal history of the applicant. Applicant
undertakes that he will not misuse the
liberty and will cooperate. Applicant has
apprehension of his arrest by the police any
time.

17. On the other hand, learned A.G.A.
opposed the prayer and argued that
proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. have
been initiated against the applicant, as he
did not appear before the court concerned
despite service of summon/notice/bailable
and non-bailable warrants is continuing till
today. Applicant is not cooperating to the
Court concerned. In support of his
submissions, learned A.G.A relied upon the
law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of State of Madhya
Pradesh Vs. Pradeep Sharma reported in
(2014) 2 SCC 171 and in the case of Prem
Shanker Prasad Vs. State of Bihar reported
in AIR OnLine 2021 SC 915 and further
argued that applicant is not entitled to be
released on anticipatory bail. A prima facie
case is made out against him.

MERIT OF THE IMPUGNED
ORDER
CANCELLING
THE
ANTICIPATORY
BAIL
APPLICATION OF THE APPLICANT

18. Learned counsel for the applicant
submits that since the order impugned
passed by the court below in a mechanical
manner, the same cannot be legally
sustained and is hereby set aside and the
order granting anticipatory bail to the
applicant be restored.

19. Per contra, learned A.G.A.
submits that while passing the impugned
order the court below has recorded
categorical finding fact, as such there is no
illegality or infirmity in the same.

20. I have considered the submissions
made by the learned counsel for the parties
and have gone through the records of the
present application including the order
impugned.

21. Now this Court comes on the
issue of maintainability of this application
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is no doubt
true that this is the third application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. which has been filed
by the applicant but from the perusal of the
orders of this Court dated 21st September,
2021 and dated 5th May, 2022 passed in the
first and second applications under Section
482 Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant bearing
Nos. Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 16846
of 2021 (Anoop Singh Vs. State of U.P. &
Another) and Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C.
No. 23322 of 2022 (Anoop SinghVs. State of
U.P. & Another), copies of which have been
placed before this Court today.
1088 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

22. Perusal of the order dated 21st
September, 2021 passed in first application
being Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No.
16846 of 2021 (Anoop Singh Vs. State of
U.P. & Another) indicates that applicant
has challenged the order dated 26th
October, 2021 issuing non-bailable warrant
against the applicant passed in the aforesaid
criminal case, whereas from the order dated
5th May, 2022 it is clear that the applicant
has challenged the charge sheet dated
15.03.2021 as well as entire proceedings of
Case No. 1085 of 2021, arising out of Case
Crime No. 30 of 2021, under Section 419,
420, 468, 471 of I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali Katra,
District Mirzapur, pending in the court of
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mirzapur with a
further prayer to stay further proceeding in
the aforesaid case. In the present applicant
i.e. third application, the applicant has
challenged the order dated 5th January,
2023 cancelling the anticipatory bail earlier
granted to the applicant.

23. It would be worthwhile to
reproduce orders 21st September, 2021 and
dated 5th May, 2022 passed by this Court
in the first and second application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the applicant, which
read as follows:

Order dated 21st September,
2021:

"Heard learned counsel for the
applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and
perused the record.

This application under Section
482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to
quash the charge sheet dated 15.03.2021 as
well as entire proceedings of Case No.
1085 of 2021, arising out of Case Crime
No. 30 of 2021, under Section 419, 420,
468, 471 of I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali Katra,
District Mirzapur, pending in the court of
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mirzapur with a
further prayer to stay further proceeding in
the aforesaid case.

Learned counsel for the applicant
submitted that the First Information Report
was lodged at the instance of the private
respondent against the applicant, is wholly
illegal, concocted and has been lodged with
false and baseless averments. The opposite
party no. 2 is a person of criminal intent
and a large number of criminal cases are
pending against him and he had initiated
the present malicious proceedings against
the applicant as a counter blast to the
criminal case lodged by applicant on
06.03.2020 against him which has been
registered at Crime No. 53 of 2020, under
Section 419, 420, 468, 471 I.P.C., P.S.
Kotwali Katra, District Mirzapur. No
offence is made out against the applicant
and private respondent no. 2 has no locusstandi to lodge the F.I.R. The applicant has
no
criminal
antecedents,
hence,
this
application.

Per
contra,
learned
A.G.A.
vehemently opposed the above submission.

Perusal of the record reveals that
an F.I.R. was lodged by Surendra Kumar
Singh on 21.02.2021 at P.S. Kotwali Katra,
District Mirzapur, under Section 419, 420,
468, 471 of I.P.C. After investigation, the
police submitted the charge sheet against
the applicant and found offences under
Section 419, 420, 468, 471 of I.P.C.
proved. In the charge sheet, it has been
stated that the applicant Anoop Kumar has
mentioned different dates of birth at
different places. At one place his date of
year mentioned as 1969 and at other place,
it is mentioned as 1975. He obtained two
Arm Licenses. It has also been stated that
3 All. Anup Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1089
there is contradiction with regard to date of
birth in the affidavit and application.

In M/s Neeharika Infrastructure
Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharastra and others,
2020 SCC Online SC 850, the Hon'ble
Apex Court has held as under:

"iv) The power of quashing
should
be
exercised
sparingly
with
circumspection, as it has been observed, in
the rarest of rare case (not to be confused
with the formation in the context of death
penalty).

v)
While
examining
an
FIR/complaint, quashing of which is
sought, the court cannot embark upon an
enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness
or otherwise of the allegations made in the
FIR/complaint;

vi) Criminal proceedings ought
not to be scuttled at the initial stage;

vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR
should be an exception rather than an
ordinary rule."

Following other authorities can
be cited on the aforesaid point: R. P. Kapur
vs. The State Of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866,
State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch.
Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604,
State of Bihar and Anr. Vs. P.P. Sharma,
AIR
1991
SC
1260
lastly
Zandu
Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. and Ors. Vs.
Md. Sharaful Haque and Ors., AIR 2005
SC 9.

All the submissions made at the
Bar relate to the disputed questions of fact,
which cannot be adjudicated upon by this
Court in proceedings u/s 482 Cr.P.C. This
Court cannot embark upon the factual
enquiry as to the truthfulness of statement
of witnesses in proceedings under Section
482 Cr.P.C.

Learned counsel for the applicant
relied upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble
Apex Court in Mohammed Ibrahim and
others v. State of Bihar and another, (2009)
3 SCC (Cri) 929.

have gone through the aforesaid
citation, the facts of this case are totally
different from the aforesaid case, hence,
the relief cannot be granted in view of the
aforesaid authority.

In view of the above, I am of the
considered opinion that the Application U/s
482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable in the
present case.

Accordingly,
the
prayer
for
quashing the proceedings is refused.

This application U/s 482 Cr.P.C.
is hereby, dismissed."

Order dated 5th May, 2022:

"vkosnd dh vksj ls /kkjk 482
na0iz0la0 ds vUrxZr ;g vkosnu i=] okn la0
1085 lu 2021] vUrxZr /kkjk 419] 420] 468]
471 Hkk0na0fo0] Fkkuk dksrokyh dVjk] ftyk
fetkZiqj esa lh0ts0,e0] fetkZiqj }kjk ikfjr
,u0ch0Myw0 vkns'k fn0 26&10&2021 ds fo:)
nk;j fd;k x;k gSA

vkosnd ds fo}ku vf/koDrk] foi{kh
la0 2 ds fo}ku vf/koDrk ,oa fo}ku vij
'kkldh; vf/koDrk dks lquk rFkk i=koyh dk
ifj'khyu fd;kA

vkosnd ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dk dFku
gS fd fu;r frfFk ij vkosnd ds voj U;k;ky;
esa vuqifLFkr gks tkus ds dkj.k muds fo:)
,u0ch0MCyw0 tkjh dj fn;k x;k gS] vc vkosnd
1090 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
voj U;k;ky; esa fu;r frfFk ij mifLFkr gksus
dks rRij gSA

vkosnd ds fo}ku vf/koDrk ds vuqjks/k
ds n`f"Vxr ;g vkosnu i= Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gS
rFkk okn la0 1085 lu 2021] vUrxZr /kkjk 419]
420] 468] 471 Hkk0na0fo0] Fkkuk dksrokyh dVjk]
ftyk fetkZiqj esa lh0ts0,e0] fetkZiqj }kjk ikfjr
,u0ch0Myw0 vkns'k fn0 26&10&2021 dk
fdz;kUo;u vkt ls 15 fnu ds fy, LFkfxr fd;k
tkrk gSA ;fn vkosnd }kjk 15 fnu ds vUnj
vkns'k dk vuqikyu lqfuf'pr ugha fd;k tkrk rks
lacaf/kr voj U;k;ky; fu;ekuqlkj vko';d
dk;Zokgh djus dks Lora= gSA""""""

24. From perusal of the aforesaid
three prayer made in all the three
applications filed by the applicant under
Section 482 Cr.P.C., it is apparently clear
that all the three applications have been
filed for different cause of action and on
different facts.

25. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in the case of Anil Khadiwala Vs.
State Govt. of NCT of Delhi reported in
2019 (17) SC 1002, relying upon the earlier
judgment of the Hon'ble Surpeme Court in
the
case
of
Superintendent
And
Remembrancer Vs. Mohan Singh And
Ors. reported in AIR 1975 SC 1002 has
opined that successive application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. under the changed
circumstances is maintainable. Relevant
portion whereof is being quoted hereinbelow:

"8. In Mohan Singh (supra), it
was held that a successive application
under Section 482 . under changed
circumstances was maintainable and the
dismissal of the

"2. ...... Here, the situation is
wholly different. The earlier application
which was rejected by the High Court was
an application under Section 561-A of the
CrPC to quash the proceeding and the
High Court rejected it on the ground that
the evidence was yet to be led and it was
not
desirable
to
interfere
with
the
proceeding at that stage. But, thereafter,
the criminal case dragged on for a period
of about one and half years without any
progress at all and it was in these
circumstances that respondents Nos. 1 and
2 were constrained to make a fresh
application to the High Court under
Section 561-A to quash the proceeding.

It is difficult to see how in these
circumstances it could ever be contended
that what the High Court was being asked
to do by making the subsequent application
was to review or revise the Order made by
it on the earlier application. Section 561-A
preserves the inherent power of the High
Court to make such Orders as it deems fit
to prevent abuse of the process of the Court
or to secure the ends of justice and the
High Court must, therefore, exercise its
inherent powers having regard to the
situation prevailing at the particular point
of time when its inherent jurisdiction is
sought to be invoked. The High Court was
in the circumstances entitled to entertain
the subsequent application of Respondents
Nos. 1 and 2 and consider whether on the
facts and circumstances then obtaining the
continuance of the proceeding against the
respondents constituted an abuse of the
process of the Court or its quashing was
necessary to secure the ends of justice. The
facts and circumstances obtaining at the
time of the subsequent application of
respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were clearly
different from what they were at the time of
the
earlier
application
of
the
first
respondent because, despite the rejection of
the
earlier
application
of
the
first
3 All. Anup Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1091
respondent, the prosecution had failed to
make any progress in the criminal case
even though it was filed as far back as 1965
and the criminal case rested where it was
for a period of over one and a half
years............"

26. From the aforesaid legal positions,
this
Court
finds
substance
in
the
submission made by the learned counsel for
the applicant and holds that this third
application filed by the applicant for the
different relief as also under the changed
circumstances is maintainable

27. So far as the preliminary objection
raised by the learned A.G.A. for the State
qua the concealment of fact in filing the
present application, is concerned, this Court
may record that in paragraph-2 of the
affidavit
accompanying
the
present
application, it has specifically been stated
that "this is a first criminal misc.
application
(482)
before
this
Court
Hon'ble Court," when as matter of fact the
applicant has earlier filed two applications
giving rise to the same criminal case. For
the reasons best known to the applicant, he
has concealed the aforesaid fact while
filing the present third application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C., meaning thereby that
the applicant has not approached this Court
with clean hands, which amounts to
interference with the administration of
justice.

28. In M/s. Tilokchand Motichand
& Ors. Vs. H.B. Munshi & Anr., reported
in AIR 1970 SC 898; State of Haryana
Vs. Karnal Distillery reported in AIR
1977 SC 781; and Sabia Khan & Ors. Vs.
State of U.P. & Ors. reported in (1999) 1
SCC 271, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held
that filing totally misconceived petition
amounts to abuse of the process of the
Court and such a litigant is not required to
be dealt with lightly, as petition containing
misleading and inaccurate statement, if
filed, to achieve an ulterior purpose
amounts to abuse of the process of the
Court.

29. In Agriculture & Process Food
Products Vs. Oswal Agro Furane & Ors.,
reported in AIR 1996 SC 1947, the Apex
Court had taken a serious objection in a
case filed by suppressing the material facts
and held that if a petitioner is guilty of
suppression of very important fact his case
cannot be considered on merits. Thus, a
litigant is bound to make "full and true
disclosure of facts". While deciding the
said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had
placed reliance upon the judgment in King
Vs. General Commissioner, reported in
(1917) 1 KB 486, wherein it has been
observed as under:-

"Where an ex parte application
has been made to this Court for a rule nisi
or other process, if the Court comes to the
conclusion that the affidavit in support of
the application was not candid and did not
fairly state the facts, but stated them in
such a way as to mislead the Court as to
the true facts, the Court ought, for its own
protection and to prevent abuse of its
process, to refuse to proceed any further
with the examination of its merits......."

30. In Abdul Rahman Vs. Prasony
Bai & Anr., AIR 2003 SC 718; and S.J.S.
Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. Vs. State of
Bihar & Ors., reported in (2004) 7 SCC
166, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that
whenever
the
Court
comes
to
the
conclusion that the process of the Court is
being abused, the Court would be justified
in refusing to proceed further and refuse
relief to the party. This rule has been
1092 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
evolved out of need of the Courts to deter a
litigant from abusing the process of the
Court by deceiving it. However, the
suppressed fact must be material one in the
sense that had it not been suppressed, it
would have led any fact on the merit of the
case.

31. In K.D. Sharma vs. SAIL,
reported in (2008) 12 SCC 481, the Apex
Court has held that the jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court under Article 32 and of
the High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution is extraordinary, equitable
and discretionary and it is imperative
that the petitioner approaching the writ
court must come with clean hands and
put forward all the facts before the Court
without
concealing
or
suppressing
anything and seek an appropriate relief.
If there is no candid disclosure of
relevant and material facts or the
petitioner is guilty of misleading the
Court, his petition may be dismissed at
the threshold without considering the
merits of the claim. The same law was
reiterated
in
G.
Jayashree
vs.
Bhagwandas S. Patel reported in (2009)
3 SCC 141.

32. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India has repeatedly held that filing of false
affidavit and concealment of material facts
amounts
to
interference
in
the
administration of justice and as such is
criminal contempt of Court. In Dhananjay
Sharma versus State of Haryana & ors.,
reported in AIR 1995 SC 1795, wherein
in paragraphs 39 and 40, th

"39. The question, therefore,
which now requires our consideration is as
to what action, is required to be taken
against the respondents.

40. Section 2 (c) of the Contempt
of Courts Act, 1971 (for short the Act)
defines
criminal
contempt
as
the
publication (whether by words, spoken or
written or by signs or visible representation
or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of
any other act whatsoever to (1) scandalise
or tend to candalise or lower or tend to
lower the authority of any Court: (2)
prejudice
or
interfere
or
tend
to
interfere.............Thus, any conduct, which
has the tendency to interfere with the
administration of justice or the due course
of judicial proceedings amounts to the
commission of criminal contempt. ............"

33. The Apex Court in the case of
Sunkara Lakshminarasamma & Anr.
Versus Sagi Subba Raju & Ors. reported
in (2009) 7 SCC 460 held that filing of
false affidavit knowingly is a contempt and
exemplary cost be imposed.

34. In Afzal & Anr. Versus State of
Haryana & Ors., reported in JT 1996 (1)
SC 328, the Apex Court in paragraph-32
has held as follows:

"32.
The
question
then
is:
whether he committed contempt in the
proceedings of this Court? Section 2 (b)
defines "Contempt of Court" to mean any
civil or criminal contempt. "Criminal
contempt" defined in Section 2(c) means
interference with the administration of
justice in any other manner. A false or a
misleading
or
a
wrong
statement
deliberately and wilfully made by a party to
the proceedings to obtain a favourable
order would prejudice or interfere with the
due course of judicial proceedings. ........."

35. In Dhananjay Sharma vs. State
of Haryana & others reported AIR 1995
3 All. Anup Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1093
SC 1795, in paragraph-40 the Supreme
Court has held as follows:

"40. ..........Thus, any conduct
which has the tendency to interfere with the
administration of justice or the due course
of judicial proceedings amounts to the
commission of criminal contempt. ......"

36. In Sabia Khan & Ors. Vs. State
of U.P. & Ors., (1999) 1 SCC 271, the
Hon'ble Apex Court held that filing totally
misconceived petition amounts to abuse of
the process of the Court and such litigant is
not required to be dealt with lightly.

37. In view of the aforesaid, this
Court finds substance in the submission
made by the learned A.G.A. for the State
that this Court must view with disfavour
any attempt by a litigant to abuse the
process. The sanctity of the judicial process
will be seriously eroded if such attempts
are not dealt with firmly. A litigant like the
applicant who takes liberties with the truth
or with the procedures of the Court should
be left in no doubt about the consequences
to follow. Others should not venture along
the same path in the hope or on a misplaced
expectation of judicial leniency. Exemplary
costs are inevitable, and even necessary, in
order to ensure that in litigation, as in the
law which is practised in our country, there
is no premium on the truth. In the case in
hand, the applicant has concealed the
material fact by filing this third application
and he has not approached this Court with
clean hands, his application is not only
liable to be rejected on this ground alone
but also the applicant should be punished
with exemplary cost.

38. Qua the submission raised by the
learned A.G.A. that since the proceedings
under Section 82 Cr.P.C. have been
initiated
against
the
applicant,
his
anticipatory bail application cannot be
entertained, this Court also find substance
in it.

39. In Lavesh Vs. State of (NCT of
Delhi reported in (2012) 8 SCC 730, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the
scope of granting relief under under
Section 428 Cr.P.C. vis-à-vis to a person
who was declared as an absconder or
proclaimed offender in terms of 82 Cr.P.C.
In para 12, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
held as under:

"12. From these materials and
information, it is clear that the present
appellant
was
not
available
for
interrogation and investigation and was
declared as "absconder". Normally,
when the accused is "absconding" and
declared as a "proclaimed offender",
there
is
no
question
of
granting
anticipatory bail. We reiterate that when a
person against whom a warrant had been
issued and is absconding or concealing
himself in order to avoid execution of
warrant and declared as a proclaimed
offender in terms of Section 82 of the Code
he is not entitled to the relief of
anticipatory bail." It is clear from the above
decision that if anyone is declared as an
absconder/proclaimed offender in terms of
Section 82 of the Code, he is not entitled to
the relief of anticipatory bail. In the case in
hand, a perusal of the materials i.e.,
confessional statements of Sanjay Namdev,
Pawan Kumar @ Ravi and Vijay @ Monu
Brahambhatt reveals that the respondents
administered poisonous substance to the
deceased.
Further,
the
statements
of
witnesses that were recorded and the report
of the Department of Forensic Medicine &
Toxicology Government Medical College
& Hospital, Nagpur dated 21.03.2012 have
1094 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
confirmed the existence of poison in milk
rabri. Further, it is brought to our notice
that warrants were issued on 21.11.2012 for
the arrest of the respondents herein. Since
they
were
not
available/traceable,
a
proclamation under Section 82 of the Code
was issued on 29.11.2012. The documents
(Annexure-P13) produced by the State
clearly show that the CJM, Chhindwara,
M.P. issued a proclamation requiring the
appearance of both the respondents/accused
under Section 82 of the Code to answer the
complaint
on
29.12.2012.
All
these
materials were neither adverted to nor
considered by the High Court while
granting anticipatory bail and the High
Court, without indicating any reason except
stating "facts and circumstances of the
case", granted an order of anticipatory bail
to both the accused. It is relevant to point
out that both the accused are facing
prosecution
for
offences
punishable
under Section 302 and 120-B read with
Section 34 of IPC. In such serious
offences,
particularly,
the
respondents/accused being proclaimed
offenders, we are unable to sustain the
impugned
orders
of
granting
anticipatory bail. The High Court failed
to appreciate that it is a settled position
of law that where the accused has been
declared as an absconder and has not
cooperated with the investigation, he
should not be granted anticipatory bail."

40. In State of Madhya Pradesh Vs.
Pradeep Sharma as well as in the case of
Prem Shanker Prasad Vs. State of Bihar
(Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court
relying upon the judmgent of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Lavesh
(Supra) has held that if anyone is declared
as an absconder/proclaimed offender in
terms of Section 82 of the Code, he is not
entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail.

41 From the aforesaid legal positions
as settled by the Hon'ble Surpeme Court,
this Court holds that the applicant against
whom proceedings 82 Cr.P.C. have been
initiated by the court below after issuance
of summons/bailable warrant/non-bailable
warrant is not entitled to grant anticipatory
bail. Anticipatory bail filed by such person
is not maintainable as also the same cannot
be entertained by this Court in exercise of
powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

42. Lastly, this Court comes on the
merit of the order impugned. While passing
the order impugned the court below has
recorded that though the fact has been
mentioned in the second anticipatory bail
application before the court below that the
first anticipatory bail application was
rejected
due
to
non-mentioning
of
"apprehension to arrest", but after that
before the Hon'ble High Court, the
applicant has withdrawn his anticipatory
bail
application
stating
that
applicant/accused is willing to appear
before the lower court and this fact has not
been mentioned in the anticipatory second
bail application filed before the court
below. The fact that he has obtained 15
days protection from the Hon'ble High
Court, when non-bailable warrant has been
issued against him, on the assurance that he
shall appear before the court below on the
due date, has also not been mentioned in
the second anticipatory bail application.
The court below has further recorded that
above facts should have been mentioned in
the second anticipatory bail application
which has been allowed by the said court.
The fact that the first anticipatory bail
application was rejected only because
apprehension to arrest was not recorded.
The court below has also recorded that the
first anticipatory bail application was
rejected by that court on 19th October,
3 All. Javed Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1095
2021 on the basis of non-apprehension to
arrest. Thereafter, the second anticipatory
bail application was not presented before
that Court but before the Hon'ble High
Court, by means of Criminal Misc.
Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438
Cr.P.C. No. 4527/2022. From perusal of the
numbers of the first anticipatory bail
application filed before the court below as
well as from the anticipatory bail application
filed before this Court, it is clear that the
anticipatory bail application was presented
before the Hon'ble High Court in the year
2022 while the first anticipatory bail
application was rejected by that court below
on 19.10.2021. Therefore, the court below
has opined that either the applicant/accused
should have appeared before the learned
lower court according to his own statement
recorded in the order of this Court or the
second anticipatory bail application should
have been presented before the Hon'ble High
Court, again, where his first anticipatory bail
application was rejected due to his noncoercion. Since the statements regarding the
submission
of
the
anticipatory
bail
application before the Hon'ble High Court
were material statements in the facts and
circumstances of this case, which were not
mentioned in the bail application, the court
below has come to the conclusion that not
mentioning in the second anticipatory bail
application was omission/concealment of
material facts. On the basis of the aforesaid
findings, the court below has passed the order
impugned cancelling the anticipatory bail
granted earlier to the applicant.

43.