# Vinod Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 11 ILRA 536
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-11-27
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 532 of 2023
- **Bench:** Krishan Pahal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/vinod-singh-v-state-of-u-p-anr-51096
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973 - Section - 438 (1)(ii) - Indian
Penal Code, Sections - 420, 467, 468, 471,
386, 397, 115, 323, 504 & 506 - Bail
Cancellation Application - order of trial court
granting Anticipatory Bail - by allowing second
Anticipatory Bail Application - wherein the
accused/opposite
party
no.
2
has
not
approached the court below with clean hand -
Court finds that, - opposite party no. 2 has
criminal antecedents and that too has not
explained,
as
such,
the
order
granting
anticipatory bail to the applicant cannot be
sustained and him being a practicing advocate
makes his case worse -held, the court seeks to
strike a delicate balance between safeguarding
individual liberty and upholding the interest of
justice and public safety - hence, he impugned
order is not sustainable and is liable to be set
aside - accordingly, instant bail cancellation
application is allowed - direction issued to
opposite party no. 2 to surrender before the trial
court with liberty to avail the remedy for regular
bail. (Para - 18, 23, 24)

Application allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

536 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
orders of the civil court would be binding
on the Magistrate."

15. Thus, considering the report of the
Naib Tehsildar concerned and the Lekhpal
concerned dated 13.04.2023 regarding the
possession of the petitioners and the entry
in
CH
Form 45
vide
order dated
07.09.1972, it can be fairly concluded that
the petitioners are in peaceful possession of
Plot No. 287 Ka and the two story house
constructed over it and there is no
apprehension of the breach of peace. The
Original Suit No. 1262 of 2023 filed by the
respondents is pending decision between
the parties.

16. After analysing the aforesaid facts
and circumstances and the submissions
advanced by the parties, the order dated
28.08.2023 (Anneuxre-1) passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Court
No.1, Jaunpur in Criminal Revision No.167
of 2023 (Rajkumar and others vs. State of
U.P. and others), arising out of Case
No.4287 of 2022, under Section 145
Cr.P.C. is hereby set-aside, affirming the
order dated 15.04.2023 passed by the Sub
Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Mariahu,
District-Jaunpur.

Accordingly, the writ petition is
allowed.
----------
(2024) 11 ILRA 536
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.11.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No.
532 of 2023

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

Counsel for the Applicant:
Chandrika Patel, Gunjan Jadwani

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Shubham Kesarwani

(A) Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973 - Section - 438 (1)(ii) - Indian
Penal Code, Sections - 420, 467, 468, 471,
386, 397, 115, 323, 504 & 506 - Bail
Cancellation Application - order of trial court
granting Anticipatory Bail - by allowing second
Anticipatory Bail Application - wherein the
accused/opposite
party
no.
2
has
not
approached the court below with clean hand -
Court finds that, - opposite party no. 2 has
criminal antecedents and that too has not
explained,
as
such,
the
order
granting
anticipatory bail to the applicant cannot be
sustained and him being a practicing advocate
makes his case worse -held, the court seeks to
strike a delicate balance between safeguarding
individual liberty and upholding the interest of
justice and public safety - hence, he impugned
order is not sustainable and is liable to be set
aside - accordingly, instant bail cancellation
application is allowed - direction issued to
opposite party no. 2 to surrender before the trial
court with liberty to avail the remedy for regular
bail. (Para - 18, 23, 24)

Application allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

1. Deepak Yadav Vs St. of U.P - AIR 2022 SC
2514,

2. Dolat Ram & ors. Vs St. of Har.- (1995) I SCC
349,

3. Neeru Yadav Vs St. of U.P. & anr. - (2016) 15
SCC 422,

4. Mahipal Vs Rajesh Kumar @ Polia & anr. - AIR
2020 SC 670,

5. Colby Furniture Company, Inc. Vs Belinda J.
Overton - 299 So. 3D 259,
11 All. Vinod Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
537
6. Holy Family Catholic School Vs Boley - 847
So. 2D 371 (2002),

7. Ash Mohammad Vs Shiv Raj Singh - (2012) 9
SCC 446,

8. Brij Nandan Jaiswal Vs Munna Jaiswal - AIR
2009 SC 1021,

9. Anil Kumar Tulsiyani Vs St. of U.P. - 2006
(55) ACC 1014 (SC),

10. Sompal Singh Vs Sunil Rathi - 2005 (1) SCJ
107,

11. St. of U.P. Vs Amarmani Tripathi - (2005) 8
SCC 21,

12. St. of Mah. Vs Sitaram Popat Vetal - AIR
2004 SC 4258.

13. Satender Kumar Antil Vs C.B.I.& anr. - 2022
SCC Online SC 825.

(Delivered by Hon'ble 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., has dealt
with the issue as follows:
538 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"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 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 victim of
abuse or the witnesses especially when
there is prima facie misuse of position and
power over the victim.

c) Where the past criminal record
and conduct of the accused is completely
ignored while granting bail.

d) Where bail has been granted
on untenable grounds.

e) Where serious discrepancies
are found in the order granting bail thereby
causing prejudice to justice.

f) Where the grant of bail was not
appropriate in the first place given the very
serious nature of the charges against the
accused which disentitles him for bail and
thus cannot be justified.

g) When the order granting bail
is apparently whimsical, capricious and
perverse in the facts of the given case.

32. In Neeru Yadav v. State of
Uttar Pradesh And Another the accused
was granted bail by the High Court. In an
appeal against the order of the High Court,
Supreme Court examined the precedents on
the principles that guide grant of bail and
observed as under :-

"12...It is well settled in law that
cancellation of bail after it is granted
because the accused has misconducted
himself
or
of
some
supervening
circumstances
warranting
such
cancellation have occurred is in a different
compartment altogether than an order
granting bail which is unjustified, illegal
and perverse. If in a case, the relevant
factors which should have been taken into
consideration while dealing with the
application for bail and have not been
taken note of bail or it is founded on
irrelevant considerations, indisputably the
superior court can set aside the order of
such a grant of bail. Such a case belongs to
a different category and is in a separate
realm. While dealing with a case of second
11 All. Vinod Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
539
nature, the Court does not dwell upon the
violation of conditions by the accused or
the supervening circumstances that have
happened subsequently. It, on the contrary,
delves into the justifiability and the
soundness of the order passed by the
Court"

13. We will be failing in our duty
if we do not take note of the concept of
liberty and its curtailment by law. It is an
established fact that a crime though
committed against an individual, in all
cases it does not retain an individual
character. It, on occasions and in certain
offences, accentuates and causes harm to
the society. The victim may be an
individual, but in the ultimate eventuate, it
is the society which is the victim. A crime,
as is understood, creates a dent in the law
and order situation. In a civilised society, a
crime disturbs orderliness. It affects the
peaceful life of the society. An individual
can enjoy his liberty which is definitely of
paramount value but he cannot be a law
unto himself. He cannot cause harm to
others. He cannot be a nuisance to the
collective. He cannot be a terror to the
society; and that is why Edmund Burke, the
great English thinker, almost two centuries
and a decade back eloquently spoke thus:

"Men are qualified for civil
liberty, in exact proportion to their
disposition to put moral chains upon their
own appetites; in proportion as their love
to justice is above their rapacity; in
proportion as their soundness and sobriety
of understanding is above their vanity and
presumption; in proportion as they are
more disposed to listen to the counsel of the
wise and good, in preference to the flattery
of knaves. Society cannot exist unless a
controlling power upon will and appetite
be placed somewhere; and the less of it
there is within, the more there must be
without. It is ordained in the eternal
constitution
of
things,
that
men
of
intemperate minds cannot be free. Their
passions forge their fetters." [ Alfred
Howard, The Beauties of Burke (T.
Davison, London) 109.]

.......

17. That apart, it has to be
remembered that justice in its conceptual
eventuality
and
connotative
expanse
engulfs the magnanimity of the sun, the
sternness of mountain, the complexity of
creation, the simplicity and humility of a
saint and the austerity of a Spartan, but it
always remains wedded to rule of law
absolutely
unshaken,
unterrified,
unperturbed and loyal.

.......

37. There is certainly no straight
jacket formula which exists for courts to
assess an application for grant or rejection
of bail but the determination of whether a
case is fit for the grant of bail involves
balancing of numerous factors, among
which the nature of the offence, the severity
of the punishment and a prima facie view of
the involvement of the accused are
important. This Court does not, normally
interfere with an order passed by the High
Court granting or rejecting bail to the
accused. However, it is equally incumbent
upon the High Court to exercise its
discretion
judiciously,
cautiously
and
strictly in compliance with basic principles
laid down in a catena of judgments by this
Court.

10. The Supreme Court in Mahipal v.
Rajesh Kumar Alias Polia and Another
held that: -

"17. Where a court considering
an application for bail fails to consider
relevant factors, an appellate court may
justifiably set aside the order granting bail.
An appellate court is thus required to
540 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
consider whether the order granting bail
suffers from a non-application of mind or is
not borne out from a prima facie view of
the evidence on record. It is thus necessary
for this Court to assess whether, on the
basis of the evidentiary record, there
existed a prima facie or reasonable ground
to believe that the accused had committed
the crime, also taking into account the
seriousness of the crime and the severity of
the punishment."

11. 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 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.

12. The clean hands doctrine is an
affirmative defense that the defendant may
claim as has been held in Holy Family
Catholic School v. Boley, that the
plaintiff's abuse of the account necessitated
a finding that the plaintiff had "unclean
hands" and that requiring the defendant to
continue granting relief would be against
good conscience.

13. The saying of Jonathan Swift:-

"Laws are like cobwebs, which
may catch small flies, but let wasps and
hornets break through."

14.
The
applicant
carried
more
responsibility in explaining the criminal
antecedents as he is a legal professional.
The saying of Jonathan Swift applies to
him.

15. The Supreme Court in umpteen
number of cases has laid down that while
granting bail to an accused, the Court
should also take into consideration the
criminal history of the accused. The
criminal antecedents of an accused though
always not determinative of question
whether bail is to be granted or not, yet
there relevance cannot be totally ignored.

(i) Ash Mohammad Vs. Shiv
Raj Singh,

(ii) Brij Nandan Jaiswal Vs.
Munna Jaiswal,

(iii) Anil Kumar Tulsiyani Vs.
State of U.P. ,

(iv) Sompal Singh Vs. Sunil
Rathi,

(v) State of U.P. Vs. Amarmani
Tripathi,

(vi) State of Maharashtra Vs.
Sitaram Popat Vetal,

16. It is true that the aforesaid
judgments
deal
with
regular
bail
application,
but
the
yardsticks
for
anticipatory bail application are stricter to
that of regular bail applications and the
powers are to be used sparingly.

17. The parameters for granting
anticipatory bail differ significantly from
those for regular bail, as they address
distinct legal situations and serve unique
purposes.
The
primary
objective
of
anticipatory bail is to protect an individual
from arrest in anticipation of being accused
of a non-bailable offense, especially when
the allegations do not appear credible as his
arrest could tarnish his image in the
society.
11 All. Ram Krishna @ Ram Kishan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
541

18. A crucial consideration is the
criminal antecedents of the accused, which
must be seriously evaluated. If the accused
has a history of criminal behavior,
unexplained or otherwise, it could weigh
heavily against the grant of anticipatory
bail.

19. Given the preventive nature of
anticipatory bail, the parameters and
conditions imposed are typically stricter.
These measures are necessary to prevent
any misuse of the bail and to ensure the
accused does not obstruct the course of
justice
by
tampering
with
evidence,
influencing witnesses, or evading trial.

20. Ultimately, the court seeks to
strike
a
delicate
balance
between
safeguarding
individual
liberty
and
upholding the interests of justice and public
safety.

21. It is true that the opposite party
no.2 has criminal antecedents and that too
has not been explained, as such, the order
granting anticipatory bail to the applicant
cannot be sustained and him being a
practising advocate makes his case worse.
His anticipatory bail was hit by Section
438(1)(ii) Cr.P.C. also.

22. After hearing the parties and
taking
into
consideration
that
the
accused/respondent no.2 has not mentioned
the
factum
of
previous
criminal
antecedents. Although, it may be true that
the closure report may have been filed. It is
further added that the counsel for the
accused/respondent no.2 has even not filed
the said closure reports or any order
indicating the accepting of said closure
report in this counter affidavit also and it
has also to be considered that the fact finds
mentioned in paragraph no.3 of the bail
order dated 09.06.2023 whereby it has been
stated that the accused/respondent no.2 has
no criminal antecedents. Therefore, the
impugned order dated 09.06.2023 passed
by Sessions Judge, Rampur in Crl. Misc.
Anticipatory Bail Application No. 906 of
2023 is not sustainable and is liable to be
set aside.

23. In view of the above, the instant
bail cancellation application is allowed.
The impugned bail order dated 09.06.2023
passed by learned Sessions Judge, Rampur
is hereby set aside.

24. However, three weeks' time from
the
date
of
pronouncement
of
this
Judgment is granted to opposite party no. 2
to surrender before the concerned Trial
Court and thereafter it will be open for
them to pray for regular bail, which may be
considered in accordance with law laid
down by the Apex Court in the case of
Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central
Bureau of Investigation and another.
----------
(2024) 11 ILRA 541
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.11.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.
THE HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 2289 of 2022

Ram Krishna @ Ram Kishan ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Aman Kumar, Surendra Pal

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.