The Allahabad High Court recently revoked the anticipatory bail granted to an advocate in an extortion case, citing his failure to disclose prior criminal antecedents. The judgment emphasizes the stricter parameters governing anticipatory bail applications, particularly under Section 438(1)(ii) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
The advocate, who was charged under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including Sections 420 (cheating), 386 (extortion), and 506 (criminal intimidation), had been granted anticipatory bail by a Sessions Court on June 9, 2023. However, it was later revealed that he had suppressed information about his prior criminal record during the bail proceedings. The applicant, seeking cancellation of the bail, argued that the accused had not approached the Sessions Court with “clean hands” by failing to disclose these antecedents, which undermined the integrity of the bail order.

Justice Krishan Pahal, while hearing the application, underscored the principle that individuals seeking equitable relief must disclose all relevant information. The judgment referenced the doctrine of clean hands, stating: “The clean hands doctrine requires the court to deny equitable relief to a party having violated good faith with respect to the subject of the claim” ( Refer page no.5 of the original order). Furthermore, the Court highlighted that the advocate, as a legal professional, carried an elevated responsibility to ensure transparency in judicial proceedings. The Court also pointed out that Section 438(1)(ii) of CrPC necessitates stricter scrutiny of anticipatory bail applications, particularly when prior criminal behavior is involved.

The High Court noted that while the accused claimed closure reports were filed in prior cases, no documentary evidence, such as the acceptance of those reports, was provided. The bail order had falsely mentioned that the advocate had no criminal antecedents, which the Court deemed a material omission. Justice Pahal remarked: “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) CrPC also” ( Refer page no.7 of the original order).

The Court annulled the anticipatory bail order, granting the accused three weeks to surrender before the trial court. The judgment allowed the accused to apply for regular bail thereafter, which would be considered in line with the guidelines established by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2022).

This ruling underscores the necessity for absolute honesty and adherence to procedural requirements, particularly for legal professionals seeking anticipatory bail. The Court’s decision reaffirms that non-disclosure of critical information constitutes a breach of judicial ethics and can result in severe consequences.

Case title - Vinod Singh vs. State of U.P. and Another

Case No: CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL CANCELLATION APPLICATION No. - 532 of 2023

Date: November - 27 - 2024

Bench: Justice Krishan Pahal 

[Read/Download order]