Relief Hit By S. 438(1)(ii) CrPC: Allahabad HC Cancels Advocate's Anticipatory Bail In Extortion Case For Concealing Criminal Antecedents
Sparsh Upadhyay
2 Dec 2024 4:59 PM IST
The Allahabad High Court recently cancelled anticipatory bail granted to an advocate in an extortion case, noting that he had not mentioned the factum of previous criminal antecedents before the trial court, which granted him the relief.
A bench of Justice Krishan Pahal emphasized that one of the crucial factors in granting anticipatory bail is the criminal antecedents of the accused, which must be carefully evaluated. Therefore, if the accused has a history of criminal behaviour, whether explained or not, it could significantly impact the decision to grant anticipatory bail.
The Court also added that in the instant case, the applicant, being a legal professional, was more responsible for explaining the criminal antecedents.
Notably, the single judge also cited Anglo-Irish writer Jonathan Swift's quote, “Laws are like cobwebs, which may catch small flies, but let wasps and hornets break through,” noting that this saying applied to the applicant in the present case.
The case in brief
The Court was dealing with a plea moved by one Vinod Singh seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted by the Sessions Court to accused/opposite party no.2 in a case lodged under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 386, 397, 115, 323, 504, 506 IPC.
It was his case that the accused had approached the Sessions Court by concealing the factum of criminal antecedents of two previous cases, and thus, he succeeded in securing anticipatory bail.
On the other hand, the counsel for the accused argued that he had categorically explained his criminal antecedents in both cases in which a closure report was filed and that, as such, he did not mention this fact.
At the outset, the Single Judge referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Deepak Yadav vs State of UP 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 562 wherein, while setting aside an order of bail granted to a murder accused, the Top Court observed that HC had not taken into consideration the accused's criminal history, the nature of the crime, the material evidence available, the Accused's involvement in the said crime, and the recovery of the weapon from his possession.
The Court observed that a key factor in granting anticipatory bail is the accused's criminal antecedents, as any history of criminal behaviour can heavily influence the decision.
The Court added that given anticipatory bail's preventive nature, the imposed parameters and conditions are typically stricter. These measures are necessary to prevent any misuse of the bail and to ensure the accused does not obstruct the course of justice by tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses, or evading trial.
Noting that the applicant had concealed his criminal antecedents, the Court noted that the order granting anticipatory bail to him could not be sustained and that his being a practising advocate made his case worse. The Court also underscored that his anticipatory bail was also hit by Section 438(1)(ii) CrPC.
In view of the above, the instant bail cancellation application was allowed, and the impugned bail order passed by the Sessions Judge, Rampur, was set aside.
However, three weeks' time was granted to the accused to surrender before the concerned Trial Court, where he could pray for regular bail, which may be considered in accordance with the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another.
Case title - Vinod Singh vs. State of U.P. and Another [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL CANCELLATION APPLICATION No. - 532 of 2023]
Case citation :
