# Soni v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 5 ILRA 1907
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-05-29
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 13 of 2024
- **Bench:** Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/soni-v-state-of-u-p-anr-51907
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 161, 164 & 439(2) - Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 143, 147, 148,
307, 326, 447 & 506 - Bail cancellation
Application - for cancellation of anticipatory Bail
- FIR - allegations are against those ten accused
persons whom have took possession of the land
of informant's father forcibly and they poured
petrol on her father and set him ablaze - while
granting anticipatory bail, this court took into
consideration that, - there was a property dispute
between the parties - there is no eye witness of
the incident - the dispute of land having already
been settled in favour of the accused persons, -
prima facie there appears to be no motive for
them to cause the incident - grounds of
cancellation of bail is that, - material facts is
concealed by the opposite party no. 2 which was
not brought to the notice of the court, - opposite
party no. 2 has already been arrested before bail
order - court finds that - (i) it appears that it is
the informant herself who has set the criminal
law in motion by not only concealing the relevant
fact that the possession of the land in dispute had
been handed over to the opposite party no. 2 by
adopting due process of law by the revenue
authorities but she making false St.ment and
(ii) opposite party no. 2 had not concealed the
fact of his arrest in his Anticipatory bail
application as he had been not arrested till
filing of the said bail application - therefore,
the allegation of concealment of fact is not
correct either against the applicant or against
the learned counsel - held, order of granting
anticipatory bail has been passed after taking
into consideration of all the relevant facts and
circumstances of the case - hence, application
for cancellation of bail; order is hereby
dismissed. (Para - 25, 26, 27, 30)

Bail Cancellation Application Dismissed. (E11)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

5 All. Soni Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1907
self-sufficient legal framework tailored to
the specific nuances of the relevant legal
domain. By providing detailed provisions
governing limitation period, the legislature
ensures certainty and predictability in legal
proceedings, thereby promoting efficiency
and expeditious resolution of disputes.
Moreover, the exclusion of general statutes
like the Limitation Act from the purview of
special statutes serves to maintain the
integrity and coherence of the legislative
scheme, preventing potential conflicts and
inconsistencies in statutory interpretation.

12. In light of the above, no
interference is warranted with the impugned
order. Accordingly, this writ petition is
dismissed.
----------
(2024) 5 ILRA 1907
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.05.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No.
13 of 2024

Soni ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sumit Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Murli Manohar Srivastava

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 161, 164 & 439(2) - Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 143, 147, 148,
307, 326, 447 & 506 - Bail cancellation
Application - for cancellation of anticipatory Bail
- FIR - allegations are against those ten accused
persons whom have took possession of the land
of informant's father forcibly and they poured
petrol on her father and set him ablaze - while
granting anticipatory bail, this court took into
consideration that, - there was a property dispute
between the parties - there is no eye witness of
the incident - the dispute of land having already
been settled in favour of the accused persons, -
prima facie there appears to be no motive for
them to cause the incident - grounds of
cancellation of bail is that, - material facts is
concealed by the opposite party no. 2 which was
not brought to the notice of the court, - opposite
party no. 2 has already been arrested before bail
order - court finds that - (i) it appears that it is
the informant herself who has set the criminal
law in motion by not only concealing the relevant
fact that the possession of the land in dispute had
been handed over to the opposite party no. 2 by
adopting due process of law by the revenue
authorities but she making false St.ment and
(ii) opposite party no. 2 had not concealed the
fact of his arrest in his Anticipatory bail
application as he had been not arrested till
filing of the said bail application - therefore,
the allegation of concealment of fact is not
correct either against the applicant or against
the learned counsel - held, order of granting
anticipatory bail has been passed after taking
into consideration of all the relevant facts and
circumstances of the case - hence, application
for cancellation of bail; order is hereby
dismissed. (Para - 25, 26, 27, 30)

Bail Cancellation Application Dismissed. (E11)

List of Cases cited:

1. Kusha Duruka Vs The St. of Odisha - (2024) 4 SCC
432,

2. Dalip Singh Vs St. of U.P. (2010) 2 SCC 114,

3. Moti Lal Songara Vs Prem Prakash @ Pappu &
anr.: (2013) 9 SCC 199,

4. Sushila Aggarwal & ors. Vs St. (NCT of Delhi) &
anr.: (2020) 5 SCC 1,

5. Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Vs St. of Punj., (1980) 2
SCC 565,

6. Dalip Singh Vs St. of U.P., (2010) 2 SCC 114,
1908 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
7. Prestige Lights Vs St. Bank of India: (2007) 8 SCC
449,

8. Smt. Shanti Rani Agarwal Vs St. of U. P. & anr.,
Criminal Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No.172 of
2022 - order dated 31.05.2023,

9. Rajesh Kumar Sharma Vs C.B.I., Criminal Misc.
Anticipatory Bail Application No.4633 of 2022
decided on 9.12.2022,

10. Smt. Ramendri Vs St. of U.P., Application (U/S
482) No.5094 of 2021 decided on 24.02.2022,

11. Abbas Ansari Vs St. of U.P., 2023 SCC OnLine All
2466,

12. Sunil Kallani Vs St. of Raj. in Criminal Misc. Bail
Application No.9155 of 2019 decided on 25.10.2021,

13. Sumant Kumar Rathi Vs St. of U.P. & anr. 2008
SCC OnLine All 1200.

(Delivered by Hon'ble 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
5 All. Soni Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1909
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
Shopkeeper. The index appended to the
rejoinder affidavit mentions photocopies of
the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex
Court and the Hon'ble High Courts as
Annexure No.RA-03, without specifying as
to how many and which judgments have
been annexed with the rejoinder affidavit. A
reference of the judgments filed as
Annexure No.RA-03 has been made in the
Para-18 of the rejoinder affidavit, which also
merely states that "A photocopy of
judgments of apex court and high court are
being collectively annexed collectively
herewith as and marked as Annexure
No.RA-03 to this rejoinder affidavit".

8. This paragraph also does not contain
the name and other particulars of the
judgments that have been annexed as
Annexure No.RA-03. The contents of Para18 of the rejoinder affidavit have been
verified by the deponent on the basis of her
personal knowledge.

9. Chapter IV of Allahabad High Court
Rules deals with Affidavits And Oath
Commissioners. Rule 8 of Chapter IV is as
follows: -

"Affidavits filed or presented in
Court:-

The provisions of Rules 5,6 and 11
of Chapter IX shall, so far as may be, apply
to an affidavit filed or presented in Court. It
shall be in the language of the Court and
shall bear the general hearing:

"In the High Court of Judicature
at Allahabad."

The affidavit and every exhibit
annexed thereto shall be marked with the
particulars of the case or proceeding in
which it is sworn.

The affidavit shall contain no
statement which is in the nature of an
expression of opinion or argument."

Rule 10 of Chapter IV provides
that an affidavit may be sworn by any person
having knowledge of the facts deposed to
therein. Rule 12 of Chapter IV provides as
follows: -

"Facts
to
be
within
the
deponent's knowledge or source to be
stated :-
1910 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Except
on
interlocutory
applications, an affidavit shall be confined
to such fact as the deponent is able of his
own knowledge to prove.

On an interlocutory application
when a particular fact is not within the
deponent's own knowledge, but is based on
his belief or information received from
others which he believes to be true, the
deponent shall use the expression "I am
informed
and
verily
believe
such
information to be true, "or words to that
effect, and shall sufficiently describe for the
purpose of identification, the person or
persons from whom his information was
received.

When any fact is stated on the
basis of information derived from a
document, full particulars of that document
shall be stated and the deponent shall verify
that he believes such information to be
true."

10. As per the aforesaid provisions
contained in the Allahabad High Court
Rules provides, the affidavit ought to be
confined to such facts, as the deponent is
able to prove on her own knowledge. In case
the any averment is not in her personal
knowledge, and she has made the averment
on the basis of information received from
some other source, she must have discloses
the source of information. There is a clear
prohibition against making statements
which are in the nature of arguments.
Therefore, the annexing of photocopies of
numerous precedents with the rejoinder
affidavit is against the provisions contained
in the Allahabad High Court Rules.

11. Moreover, the manner in which
photocopies of seven judgments have been
annexed without any index or even list of
those judgments, leaves it for the Court to go
through the entire rejoinder affidavit
running into 236 pages, and in case the
Court fails to omit any of the case annexed
with the rejoinder affidavit, as otherwise it
will be open for the applicant to allege that
this Court has passed the order without
application of mind to the material available
on record. This has resulted in wastage of
precious time of the Court which could have
been utilized for dispensation of justice to
some litigant also. The Court deprecates this
conduct of the learned Counsel for the
applicant in filing photocopies of numerous
precedents alongwith the rejoinder affidavit
in violation of the provisions of the
Allahabad High Court Rules.

12. Now I proceed to deal with each
and every case-law annexed with the
rejoinder affidavit.

13. The first judgment annexed with
the rejoinder affidavit is of Kusha Duruka
v. The State of Odhisha: (2024) 4 SCC
432, and he learned Counsel has placed
reliance on the following portion of this
judgment:

"4. In Dalip Singh v. State of U.P.
(2010) 2 SCC 114, this Court noticed the
progressive decline in the values of life and
the conduct of the new creed of litigants,
who are far away from truth. It was
observed as under :

"1. For many centuries Indian
society cherished two basic values of life
i.e. "satya" (truth) and "ahimsa" (nonviolence). Mahavir, Gautam Buddha and
Mahatma Gandhi guided the people to
ingrain these values in their daily life.
Truth constituted an integral part of the
justice-delivery system which was in vogue
in the pre-Independence era and the people
used to feel proud to tell truth in the courts
irrespective of the consequences. However,
post-Independence period has seen drastic
5 All. Soni Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1911
changes in our value system. The
materialism has overshadowed the old
ethos and the quest for personal gain has
become so intense that those involved in
litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of
falsehood,
misrepresentation
and
suppression
of
facts
in
the
court
proceedings.

2. In the last 40 years, a new
creed of litigants has cropped up. Those
who belong to this creed do not have any
respect for truth. They shamelessly resort
to falsehood and unethical means for
achieving their goals. In order to meet the
challenge posed by this new creed of
litigants, the courts have, from time to time,
evolved new rules and 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." (emphasis in original)

14. In Kusha Duruka (Supra), the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has also referred to
an earlier decision in the case of Moti Lal
Songara Vs. Prem Prakash @ Pappu and
another: (2013) 9 SCC 199, wherein the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:-

"19. The second limb of the
submission is whether in the obtaining
factual matrix, the order passed by the High
Court discharging the accused-respondent
is justified in law. We have clearly stated
that though the respondent was fully aware
about the fact that charges had been framed
against him by the learned trial Judge, yet
he did not bring the same to the notice of the
revisional court hearing the revision against
the order taking cognizance. It is a clear
case of suppression. It was within the
special knowledge of the accused. Any one
who
takes
recourse
to
method
of
suppression in a court of law, is, in
actuality, playing fraud with the court,and
the maxim supressio veri, expression faisi,
i.e.. suppression of the truth is equivalent
to the expression of falsehood, gets
attracted. We are compelled to say so as
there has been a calculated concealment of
the fact before the revisional court. It can be
stated with certitude that the accused-
respondent tried to gain advantage by such
factual
suppression.
The
fraudulent
intention is writ large. In fact, he has shown
his courage of ignorance and tried to
playpossum.

20. The High Court, as we have
seen,
applied
the
principle
"when
infrastructure collapses, the superstructure
is bound to collapse". However, as the
order has been obtained by practising
fraud and suppressing material fact before
a court of law to gain advantage, the said
order cannot be allowed to stand."
(emphasis in original)

15. A copy of the judgment in the case
of Sushila Aggarwal and Others v. State
(NCT of Delhi) and another: (2020) 5 SCC
1 has also been annexed with the rejoinder
affidavit, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme
Court referred to a decision in Gurbaksh
Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2
SCC 565, wherein it was held that the
provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C. can be
invoked after the arrest of the accused. The
grant of anticipatory bail to an accused who
is under arrest involves a contradiction in
terms, in so far as the offence or offences for
which he is arrested, are concerned. After
arrest, the accused must seek his remedy
under Section 437 or 439 of the Code, if he
wants to be released on bail in respect of the
offence or offences for which he is arrested.

16. Sushila Aggarwal refers to the
following passage from the judgment in
Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia (Supra): -
1912 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"94. The proper course of action
ought to be that after evaluating the
averments and accusation available on the
record if the court is inclined to grant
anticipatory bail then an interim bail be
granted and notice be issued to the Public
Prosecutor. After hearing the Public
Prosecutor the court may either reject the
bail application or confirm the initial order
of granting bail. The court would certainly
be entitled to impose conditions for the grant
of bail. The Public Prosecutor or the
complainant would be at liberty to move the
same court for cancellation or modifying the
conditions of bail any time if liberty granted
by the court is misused. The bail granted by
the court should ordinarily be continued till
the trial of the case.

.......

96. It is a settled legal position
that the court which grants the bail also has
the power to cancel it. The discretion of
grant or cancellation of bail be exercised
either at the instance of the accused, the
Public Prosecutor or the complainant on
finding new material or circumstances at
any point of time."

17. The next judgment annexed with
the rejoinder affidavit is a judgment dated
3.12.2009 rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Dalip Singh v. State of U.P.,
(2010) 2 SCC 114, wherein the Hon'ble
Supreme Court referred to the following
passage from an earlier decision in the case
of Prestige Lights versus State Bank of
India: (2007) 8 SCC 449: -

"6. In Prestige Lights Ltd. V.
State Bank of India (2007) 8 SCC 449, it
was held that in exercising power under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India the
High Court is not just a court of law, but
is also a court of equity and a person who
invokes the High Court's jurisdiction
under article 226 of the Constitution is
duty bound to place all the facts before the
court without any reservation. If there is
suppression of material facts or twisted
facts have been placed before the High
Court then it will be fully justified in
refusing to entertain petition filed under
Article 226 of the Constitution. This Court
referred to the judgment of Scrutton, L.J.
in
R
v
Kensington
Income
Tax
Commissioners (1917) 1 K.B. 486, and
observed:

"In exercising jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution, the High
Court will always keep in mind the
conduct of the party who is invoking such
jurisdiction. If the applicant does not
disclose full facts or suppresses relevant
materials or is otherwise guilty of
misleading the Court, then the Court may
dismiss the action without adjudicating
the matter on merits. The rule has been
evolved in larger public interest to deter
unscrupulous litigants from abusing the
process of Court by deceiving it. The very
basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in
disclosure of true, complete and correct
facts. If the material facts are not candidly
stated or are suppressed or are distorted,
the very functioning of the writ courts
would become impossible."
* * *

21. From what we have mentioned
above, it is clear that in this case efforts to
mislead the authorities and the courts have
transmitted through three generations and
the conduct of the appellant and his son to
mislead the High Court and this Court
cannot, but be treated as reprehensible.
They belong to the category of persons who
not only attempt, but succeed in polluting
the course of justice. Therefore, we do not
find any justification to interfere with the
order under challenge or entertain the
appellant's prayer for setting aside the
5 All. Soni Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1913
orders passed by the Prescribed Authority
and the Appellate Authority."

18. A copy of an order dated
31.05.2023 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench
of this Court in Smt. Shanti Rani Agarwal
versus State of U. P. and another,
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
Cancellation
Application No.172 of 2022, has also been
annexed with the rejoinder affidavit,
wherein it was held that :-

"29. The clean hands doctrine
states that one "who comes into equity must
come with clean hands." This doctrine
requires the court to deny equitable relief to
a party having violated good faith with
respect to the subject of the claim. The
purpose of the doctrine, as elucidated in
Colby Furniture Company, Inc. v. Belinda
J. Overton's is to prevent a party from
obtaining relief when that party's own
wrongful conduct has made it such that
granting the relief would be against equity
and good conscience."

19. Another judgment rendered by
another Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
Rajesh Kumar Sharma v. C.B.I., Criminal
Misc.
Anticipatory
Bail
Application
No.4633 of 2022 decided on 9.12.2022, has
been annexed with the rejoinder affidavit
and it merely follows the dictum of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gurbaksh
Singh Sibbia (Supra).

20. The next judgment annexed with
the rejoinder affidavit is of Smt. Ramendri
v. State of U.P., application under Section
482
No.5094
of
2021
decided
on
24.02.2022, which refers to a judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prestige
Lights Limited v. State Bank of India
(2007) 8 SCC 449, which has already been
referred above.

21. As the learned Counsel for the
applicant has unnecessary multiplied the
number of judgments, it would be relevant
to refer to a decision of this Court in Abbas
Ansari v. State of U.P., 2023 SCC OnLine
All 2466, wherein this Court held that: -

"29. Keeping in view the conduct
of the learned Counsel for the applicant in
supplying a compilation of 13 judgments
running into 242 pages, without even an
index, and placing only one judgment of the
Delhi High Court and leaving it for the
Court to go through the remaining 12
judgments, the Court is constrained to
observe that an increasing tendency of
supplying
multiple
case-laws,
without
connecting the same to the facts and
circumstances of the case in hand is being
observed nowadays. This results in wastage
of precious time of the Court and creates an
unnecessary
obstacle
in
expeditious
dispensation of justice.

30. It would be proper and
sufficient if the learned Counsel put up a
proposition and then submit a case-law in
support thereof. In case any proposition is
supported by any land-mark judgment which
has been followed consistently and repeatedly,
it would be sufficient to cite that land-mark
judgment, or at the most one more latest
judgment in which it was followed or
reiterated. The Counsel should not supply
case laws without putting up a proposition and
they should avoid the temptation of citing
multiple case-laws on a single point, which
does not make any beneficial difference. The
learned Counsel are expected to assist the
Court in arriving at a decision expeditiously
without wasting the precious time of the Court
so that the same time may be better utilized in
the interest of some other litigants."

22. The learned counsel for the
applicant has also annexed a judgment
1914 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
rendered by Hon'ble Single Judge of
Rajasthan High Court sitting at Jaipur in
Sunil Kallani v. State of Rajasthan in
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.9155
of 2019 decided on 25.10.2021, wherein the
Hon'ble Single Judge held that the
anticipatory bail would not lie and would not
be maintainable if a person is already
arrested and is in custody of police or
judicial custody in relation to another
criminal case which may be for similar
offence or for different offences.

23. The next judgment annexed with
the rejoinder affidavit is of Sumant Kumar
Rathi Vs. State of U.P. & Another 2008
SCC OnLine All 1200, wherein this Court
cancelled a bail granted by the Session Court
to a person accused of a very serious offence
in which the injured sustained fire arm
injury at the abdomen inside the house of her
in laws only after six months of her marriage
without
even
providing
sufficient
opportunity to the prosecution to place the
correct facts and the Sessions Judge even
failed to consider the statement of the
injured recorded u/s. 161, Cr.P.C. Sessions
Judge also failed to consider that after
sustaining the injury the injured had got
paralyzed. His Court held that when Session
Court has granted bail to the accused on the
basis of the irrelevant and inadmissible
evidence then this Court must certainly
cancel the bail.

24. The last judgment annexed with the
rejoinder affidavit is of Shri T.K. Dutta v.
Pawan Kumar Didwani and Anr. 1995
Criminal Law Journal 3274, in which an
Hon'ble Single Judge of Kolkata High Court
held that where the accused had obtained
bail by falsely claiming that he was suffering
from Myocardial Infraction, only on
consideration of the "serious condition his
health", by practising fraud upon the Court
for obtaining the said Order, the bail order
was liable to be cancelled.

25. It is no doubt correct that a litigant
approaching the Court or setting the process
of law in motion should do so fairly and with
clean hands. Bu unfortunately in the present
case, it is the applicant herself, who did not
observe this basis principle while lodging
the FIR falsely alleging that the accused
persons had forcibly taken possession of the
land in dispute whereas the possession of the
land in dispute had been delivered by
Competent
Revenue
Authorities
by
adopting due process of law. Therefore, it
appears that it is the informant herself who
has set the criminal law in motion by not
only concealing the relevant fact that the
possession of the land in dispute had been
handed over to the opposite party No.2 by
adopting due process of law but making a
false statement by alleging that the
possession had been taken forcibly.

26. So far as the submission of learned
counsel for the applicant that the applicant
had already been arrested when this Court
passed an order for anticipatory bail, suffice
it to say that the opposite party no. 2 had
filed the anticipatory bail application on
16.12.2023, after giving its notice to the
learned
Government
Advocate
on
14.12.2023. Therefore, the opposite party
No.2 had filed the anticipatory bail
application while he was not in custody.

27. When the notice of the application
was given while the opposite party No.2 was
not in custody and the application was also
filed when the opposite party No.2 was not
in custody, therefore, the opposite party
No.2 has not concealed the fact of his arrest
in the anticipatory bail application as he had
been not arrested till filing of the
anticipatory bail application.
5 All. Anuj Arya @ Dabbu Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1915

28. So far as the question of learned
counsel for opposite party No.2 having
concealed the facts of arrest of opposite
party No.2 from this fact is concerned, the
opposite party No.2 was arrested at 23:50
hours on 18.12.2023 and this Court has no
reason to presume that the learned counsel
for the opposite party No.2 had knowledge
of arrest of opposite party No.2, when he
advanced his submissions before this Court
when the case was taken up as fresh on
19.12.2023.

29. Therefore, the allegation of
concealment of fact is not correct either
against the applicant or against his learned
counsel.

30. The order dated 19.12.2023 has
been passed after taking into consideration
all the relevant facts and circumstances of
the case, as has been noted in the preceding
paragraphs of this order, including the facts
that the applicant has falsely alleged in the
F.I.R. that the accused persons had taken
possession of the land in dispute forcibly.
The learned Counsel for the applicant has
failed to make out any ground for
cancellation of the bail order dated
19.12.2023.

31. The application for cancellation of
bail order dated 19.12.2023 lacks merit and
the same is hereby dismissed.
----------
(2024) 5 ILRA 1915
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.05.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4349 of 2023

Anuj Arya @ Dabbu ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Surendra Kumar Mishra, Nikhil Dwivedi,
Raghvendra Pandey, Sudhir Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Shiv Kumar Yadav

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 161, 164, 309 & 439 -
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 363,
366 & 376 - The Protection of Children
from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 -
Sections 5-L, 6, 29 & 35(2) - Application for
Bail - FIR - allegation of committing rape and
threatened
prosecutrix/child
to
face
dire
consequences - grounds of bail that, present
application is languishing in jail since long time
and has been falsely implicated as well as there
is inordinate delay in lodging FIR has not been
explained - court observed that, prosecutrix is a
minor child aged about 15 years on the date of
incident - considering the entire St.ment
recorded u/s 161 & 164 Crpc as well as evidence
available on record, she has levelled specific
allegation of committing rape against the present
applicant on the pretext of false promise of
marriage - hence, considering the facts and
circumstances of the case as well as the dictums
of the Apex Court, the bail application is rejected
- further, trial court directed to conclude the trial
within a period of nine months, direction issued
accordingly - however, applicant has a liberty to
file another bail application, if the trial is not
concluded within the stipulated time.
(Para - 9, 10, 16, 18, 19)

Bail Application Rejected. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

1. St. of H.P. Vs Asha Ram, (2005) 13 SCC 766,

2. Ganesan Vs St. represented by its Inspector of
Police, (2020) 10 SCC 573,

3. Vijay Vs St. of M.P. (2010) 8 SCC 191,