Being A Practising Advocate Makes His Case Worse: Allahabad HC Cancels Anticipatory Bail Granted To Accused Advocate For Concealing Criminal Antecedents

The Court allowed the bail cancellation application by setting aside the anticipatory bail granted to an accused advocate by the Trial Court in a case involving allegations under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 386, 397, 115, 323, 504, and 506 of the IPC. The Bench noted that the accused had not approached the Court with "clean hands."

A Single Bench of Justice Krishan Pahal observed, “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) Cr.P.C. also.”

Advocate Gunjan Jadwani appeared for the Applicant, while Advocate Shubham Kesarwani represented the Opposite Party.

The Trial Court granted the accused an anticipatory bail the accused after noting that the accused had no criminal antecedents.

It was argued that the suppression of the said fact indicated that he was not entitled to an anticipatory bail.

The High Court explained that the parameters for granting anticipatory bail differed significantly from those for regular bail, as they address distinct legal situations and serve unique purposes. “The primary objective of anticipatory bail is to protect an individual from arrest in anticipation of being accused of a non-bailable offense, especially when the allegations do not appear credible as his arrest could tarnish his image in the society,” it remarked.

“A crucial consideration is the criminal antecedents of the accused, which must be seriously evaluated. If the accused has a history of criminal behavior, unexplained or otherwise, it could weigh heavily against the grant of anticipatory bail,” the Court observed.

Given the preventive nature of anticipatory bail, the Bench pointed out that the parameters and conditions imposed 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,” it remarked.

Consequently, the Court held, “In view of the above, the instant bail cancellation application is allowed. The impugned bail order dated 09.06.2023 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Rampur is hereby set aside.”

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the bail cancellation application.

Cause Title: Vinod Singh v. State Of U.P. & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC:186413)

Appearance:

Applicant: Advocates Chandrika Patel and Gunjan Jadwani

Opposite Party: Advocate Shubham Kesarwani; AGA Ashutosh Srivastava

Click here to read/download the Judgment