Party Tried To Mislead Court This Reason Anticipatory Bail Can Be Denied: PB&HR HC

Recently, the Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld a lower court's order denying an accused anticipatory bail on the basis that he attempted to mislead the Court by concealing facts regarding the dismissal of his earlier plea.

The bench comprising Justice Pankaj Jain stated, The bench was dealing with a case in which the petitioner was seeking pre-arrest bail anticipating his arrest in a FIR registered under the provisions of the Haryana Gauvansh Sanrakshan and Gausamvardhan Act, 2015, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1959, Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, and Sections 181/192 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.

The Additional Sessions Judge denied his application on the grounds that the Petitioner had failed to disclose that his initial application for anticipatory bail had been dismissed as withdrawn.

The petitioner then petitioned the High Court, arguing that the Sessions Court's reason alone cannot be sufficient to dismiss the bail.

The court determined that the petitioner concealed the very fact that the Sessions Court denied the petitioner's initial application for pre-arrest bail. In such a case, it is well-established that when a proceeding is "ex debito justitiae," the Court will not exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant.

In the case of Hari Narain vs. Badri Dass, AIR 1963 S.C. 1558, the Supreme Court approved the above-mentioned principle, which was later followed in Welcome Hotel vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1983) 4 SCC 575, in which it was held that a party misleading the Court is not entitled to any consideration from the Court.

In light of these observations, the court reached the conclusion that the petitioner did not come to court with clean hands. The court further determined that the lower court was justified in dismissing the petitioner's application.

Consequently, the court dismissed the case because it lacked merit.

D.D: 10.06.2022

Deen Mohd. Versus State of Haryana