Anticipatory Bail Can Be Denied Solely For The Reason That Party Tried To Mislead Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently upheld a trial court's order denying anticipatory bail to an accused, solely on the ground that he had tried to mislead the Court by concealing facts regarding dismissal of his earlier plea.The bench comprising Justice Pankaj Jain observed,"The law is well settled that where a process is "ex debito justitiae" the Court would refuse to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant where the application is found to be wanting in bona fides...In the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner has not approached the Court seeking relief of pre-arrest bail with the clean hands and the Lower Court was justified in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner."The bench was dealing with a case where the petitioner was seeking pre-arrest bail apprehending his arrest in FIR registered under the provisions of Haryana Gauvansh Sanrakshan and Gausamvardhan Act, 2015, Prevention of Animals of Cruelty Act, 1959 along with Section 120-B of the IPC and Sections 181/192 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. The Additional Sessions Judge had rejected his application stating that the Petitioner failed to disclose that his first anticipatory bail application was dismissed as withdrawn.The petitioner then approached the High Court, contending that the reason recorded by the Sessions Court alone cannot be a reason to dismiss the bail. The court held that the petitioner concealed the very fact of filing first application seeking pre-arrest bail and its dismissal thereof from the Sessions Court. In such a situation, the law is well settled that where a process is "ex debito justitiae" the Court would refuse to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant. Court placed reliance on Apex Court's judgement in the case of Hari Narain vs. Badri Dass, AIR 1963 S.C. 1558 wherein the court approved the above-mentioned principle which was later on followed in the case of 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 at the hands of the Court. In the light of these observations, the court concluded that the petitioner has not approached the Court with the clean hands. Court further held that the Lower Court was justified in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner. Accordingly, the court dismissed the case finding it sans any merit. Case Title: Deen Mohd. Versus State of HaryanaCitation : 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 156Click Here To Read/Download Order

Anticipatory Bail Can Be Denied Solely For The Reason That Party Tried To Mislead Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Drishti Yadav

Tags