Allahabad High Court
Bire vs State Of U.P. on 12 August, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Singh
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:136378 Court No. - 67 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24227 of 2025 Applicant :- Bire Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Jagadish Prasad Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
1-Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. representing the State and perused the record.
2-The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 135 of 2021, under Section 308, 325, 323, 504 I.P.C., Police Station Pipari, District Kaushambi during the pendency of trial.
3-As per the prosecution case in brief, complainant-Dashrath Lal who is also an injured, got a first information report lodged on 04.06.2021 against Rajendra, Bire (applicant) and Tiroj making allegations inter-alia that on 03.06.2021 at about 9 p.m., on the exhortation of Rajendra, they have badly beaten him and his brother, whereby they have received injuries.
4-It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The F.I.R., in question, has been lodged after delay of one day without any plausible explanation. The prosecution has set up a case that the incident is said to have been taken place at a ghat (public place) but there is no independent public witness of the alleged incident. He next submits that nothing has been recovered from the possession of the applicant. It is further pointed out that co-accused Tiroj has been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 22.02.2022 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 54541 of 2021, therefore, the applicant who has no criminal history and is languishing in jail since 11.06.2025 is also entitled to be released on bail.
5-On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the applicant has not approached to this Court with clean hand, because in paragraph no. 25 of the affidavit filed in support of this bail application, applicant has mentioned that he has no criminal history to his credit, whereas apart from this case, applicant has a criminal history of five other criminal cases, which reads as under:-
(i) Case Crime No. 264 of 2007, under Section 354, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Pipari, District Kaushambi.
(ii) Case Crime No. 36 of 2008, under Section 110G Cr.P.C., Police Station Pipari, District Kaushambi.
(iii) Case Crime No. 158 of 2017, under Section 279, 337, 333 I.P.C., Police Station Pipari, District Kaushambi.
(iv) Case Crime No. 119 of 2020, under Sections 379, 411 I.P.C., Section 3/57 of U.P. Mines and Minerals (Concession) Rules and Section 4/21 of Mines and Minerals Act, Police Station Pipari, District Kaushambi.
(v) Case Crime No. 132 of 2022, under Sections 2/3 U.P. Control of Goondas Act, Police Station Pipari, District Kaushambi.
6-On putting query by the Court, learned counsel for the applicant could not dispute the aforesaid submission of learned A.G.A. and submits that since the maternal uncle (mama) of the applicant is deponent in the present case and he was not aware about the complete criminal history of the applicant, therefore, the same could not be mentioned.
7-Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find that the applicant has not come with clean hands as he has suppressed and concealed the material facts about his criminal history, which is also one of the relevant aspect for considering the bail prayer of the applicant.
8-In view of judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Neeru Yadav vs. State of U.P., (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 527, criminal antecedents of the accused cannot be ignored while deciding bail application, discretionary powers of Courts to grant bail must be exercised in a judicious manner in case of a habitual offender.
9-The said judgment has been further followed by the Apex Court in the case of Sudha Singh vs. State of U.P. and Another, 2021 (4) SCC 781.
10-The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dalip Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2010) 2 SCC 114 came down heavily on unscrupulous litigants by holding that 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.
11-The courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One, who comes to the court, must come with clean hands and no material facts should be concealed. I am constrained to observe that more often the process of the court is being abused by unscrupulous litigants/accused to achieve their nefarious design.
12- So far as submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that co-accused Tiroj has been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 22.02.2022 is concerned, it would be relevant to quote the said bail order, which reads as under:-
"???.
It is submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. Three persons including the applicant are said to have assaulted the informant and his brother. As per injury report of informant, he has a fracture of left ulna bone. The brother of the informant has not received any injury. In this regard, counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the statement of brother of the informant at Page no.14 of the supplementary affidavit. The applicant has no criminal history to his credit. It is contended that in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. The applicant is in jail since 03.11.2021.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.
Perused the first information report as well as the averments made in the bail application.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also perusing the material on record, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, let the applicant Tiroj involved in case crime no.135 of 2021, under Sections 323, 325, 308, 504 I.P.C., P.S Pipari, District Kaushambi be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned on the following conditions that: ?..."
13-On perusal of aforesaid bail order dated 22.02.2022, I find that :-
13.1- In the said bail order, only one injury of the injured was considered, whereas injured has received following 6 injuries :
(i) Stitched wound on the left side of forehead (number of stitches 6). Advised x-ray skull (AP/CAT)
(ii) Traumatic swelling at left side of occipital region approx 4x4 cm. Advised x-ray skull as above.
(iii) Bruise traumatic swelling on right temporal region.
(iv) Contusions on duodenal nautch approx x69 cm. Advised x-ray chest.
(v) Massive traumatic swelling at left hand approx 20x6 cm. Advied -ray left hand.
(vi) Contusion at left knee approx 3x3 cm.
All the above injuries are caused by hard and blunt object. Duration approx 18 to 20 hours.
13.2-As per CT Scan report dated 08.06.2021, apart from fracture on left ulna bone, a fracture was also found on left frontal bone.
13.3- Co-accused Tiroj has no criminal history, whereas, present applicant apart from this case has criminal history of five cases, as noted above.
13.4-No reason has been recorded by the Co-ordinate Bench while granting bail to co-accused Tiroj, whereas, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Deepak Yadav vs. State of U.P. and Another, (2022) 8 SCC 559 has laid down the guidelines that every order either rejection or granting bail must reflect the reasons of the same. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment reads as under :-
"27.The importance of assigning reasoning for grant or denial of bail can never be undermined. There is prima facie need to indicate reasons particularly in cases of grant or denial of bail where the accused is charged with a serious offence. The sound reasoning in a particular case is a reassurance that discretion has been exercised by the decision maker after considering all the relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
41. Grant of bail to the Respondent No. 2/accused only on the basis of parity shows that the impugned order passed by the High Court suffers from the vice of non-application of mind rendering it unsustainable. The High Court has not taken into consideration the criminal history of the respondent No. 2/accused, nature of crime, material evidences available , involvement of respondent No. 2/accused in the said crime and recovery of weapon from his possession."
13.5- Hence, considering the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Deepak Yadav (Supra), this Court is not bound to follow aforesaid bail order of co-accused Tiroj, which is based upon no reasons and in the light of injuries as noted above are against the conscious of this Court.
14-Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, gravity of the offence, role assigned to the applicant, criminal history of the applicant and severity of punishment, I do not find any good ground to release the applicant on bail.
15-Accordingly, the instant bail application is rejected.
16-It is clarified that observations made herein above are limited to the extend of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case.
17-The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence to be adduced uninfluenced by anything mentioned in the order.
18-It is open for the applicant to move second bail application after recording the statement of injured before the trial Court.
Order Date :- 12.8.2025 Saurabh