High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 71 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2056 of 2022 Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Maurya Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Pundir Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Prashant Kumar Singh with Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2201 of 2022 Applicant :- Pooja Maurya Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Pundir Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J. Both the applications under Section 438 Cr.P.C. are connected together as they arise out of the same case. They are being decided together.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Sri Gaurav Pundir, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Bade Lal Bind, learned counsel for the State. Both the applications have been filed before this Court under Section 438 Cr.P.C. with the prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants Ashok Kumar Maurya and Pooja Maurya in Case Crime No. 65 of 2020, under Sections 419,420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Atrauli, District Azamgarh during the pendency of the trial. It is further prayed that interim anticipatory bail be granted to the accused and a direction be issued by the Chief Judicial Officer to continue the same interim bail during the pendency of the present anticipatory bail application. On 22.03.2022 the following order was passed in the case of Ashok Kumar Maurya:- "Sri Gaurav Pundir, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Raj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the State are present. The first information report of the present case was lodged on 24.06.2020. The applicant has approached this Court after about 01 year and 08 months. Learned counsel for the first informant states that non-bailable warrants has been issued against the applicant vide order dated 28.09.2021. Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted two weeks' time to disclose the reasons for delay and also regarding his co-operation in the investigation till date. Let the matter be listed on 08.04.2022 as fresh." Learned counsel for the applicants has then filed a supplementary affidavits dated 31.03.2022 in both the matters. Application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. of Ashok Kumar Maurya has been filed before this Court on 04.03.2022 whereas the petition for anticipatory bail of Pooja Maurya has been filed on 7.03.2022. Learned counsel for the first informant has appeared in both the matters. The case of Ashok Kumar Maurya was previously taken up on 22.03.2022. The supplementary affidavits in both the matters have been filed after 27 days and 23 days respectively of filing of the applications of Ashok Kumar Maurya and Pooja Maurya. Learned counsel for the first informant has pointed out that the applicants have filed Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 12749 of 2020 (Sunita Maurya and three others Vs. State of U.P. and 4 others) before this Court with the prayer to quash the First Information Report of the present case and in the meantime stay their arrest which is pending disposal before this Court. It is argued that there has been no disclosure of the said fact in the anticipatory bail application of both the accused persons. It is argued that subsequently after his putting in appearance in both the matters, the said supplementary affidavits have been filed in which for the first time the said fact has been disclosed in para 10 by annexing the orders passed therein which are annexure no.5 to the same. It is argued that the same was a concealment of a material fact from the Court which should have been disclosed at the very inception when the present anticipatory bail has been filed but has come in the supplementary affidavit after more than 20 days of its filing and even after he had filed his appearance and had appeared in the matter. On a pointed query to learned counsel for the applicants about it he states that the said fact has been disclosed in the supplementary affidavits and there is no concealment and also to a query as to why during the pendency of the writ petition which has the prayer to quash the First Information Report and even stay of arrest of petitioners therein anticipatory bail application has been filed, he states that since the said writ petition is pending and there is a likelihood of it not being taken up, the applicants have filed the present anticipatory bail applications. The situation thus which arises is that the applicants with three other co-accused persons have challenged the First Information Report in a writ petition before this Court in which there is an interim prayer made for stay of their arrest and the said writ petition is pending disposal but in the meantime they have filed the present anticipatory bail applications in which at the very first instance there was no disclosure of filing of the said writ petition before this Court which has subsequently come up after more than 20 days and even after the appearance of learned counsel for the first informant in the matter. The conclusion thus drawn is that the applicants have not approached this Court with clean hands which as per settled principles of law is the first thing expected from a litigant approaching the Courts. At the very first instance there was no disclosure of filing of the writ petition and its pendency before this Court in which the applicants are also petitioners. The situation is thus bad. Accordingly, both the anticipatory bail applications are rejected with a cost of Rs. 5,000/- each which shall be deposited within two weeks from today by the applicants before the Registrar General of this Court, failing which, the same shall be realized as land revenue from the applicants. If the money is deposited the same shall be transferred to the Account of High Court Legal Service Committee for its utilization therein for the needy persons. Order Date :- 8.4.2022 M. ARIF (Samit Gopal, J.) Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD ARIF Date: 2022.04.18 09:27:10 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad