Himachal Pradesh High Court
CRMPM/2450/2022 on 29 December 2022
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr.MP(M) No.2450 of 2022 Decided on: 29.12.2022 Anshul Singhal
…Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh … Respondent.
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? Yes _____________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Vishal Mittal and Ms. Heena Chauhan, Advocates. For the respondent: M/s Sumesh Raj, Dinesh Thakur and Sanjeev Sood, Additional Advocates General, Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By By way of this petition, a prayer has been made for release of the petitioner on bail, in F.I.R. No.161 of 2019, dated 06.09.2019, registered under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Sadar, District Shimla, H.P.
2. When the case was taken up on 07.12.2022, the following order was passed: “In terms of the last order, the State has produced the record pertaining to the complaint which was filed by sister of the present petitioner and perusal thereof demonstrates that as the allegations which were made by sister of the petitioner against the Investigating Officer were found to be correct. Accordingly, the Department concerned has proceeded against the said officer. Heard for sometime. Learned counsel for the petitioner has informed the Court that the petitioner has also filed an application for discharge before the learned Trial Court and the same is listed for hearing today itself. In these circumstances, this Court is of the view that before the present application is taken up for further consideration, let the learned Court below decide the application which has been filed by the petitioner seeking discharge, as learned counsel has submitted that the application was filed about four months back and till date, the same has not been adjudicated upon. This case is ordered to be listed on 19.12.2022. It is impressed upon the learned Court below to adjudicate the application which has been filed by the petitioner seeking discharge, on or before 19.12.2022. Record be sent back forthwith.”
3. When the matter was taken up for consideration today, at the very threshold learned Additional Advocate General stated on instructions that on the last date of hearing, a false statement was made in the Court on the behalf of the petitioner that an application stood filed by the petitioner before the learned Trial Court, praying for his discharge about four months back and the same was not being adjudicated upon by learned Trial Court. According to learned Additional Advocate General, no application for discharge was in fact filed by the petitioner before learned Trial Court as on 07.12.2022.
4. Confronted with the situation, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he was subsequently engaged by the petitioner and that he was not aware of the said fact. However, a perusal of the record demonstrates that this statement was made by learned counsel who is before this Court today on behalf of the petitioner may be on incorrect instructions so imparted to him. Be that as it may, the fact of the matter still remains that not only an incorrect statement but also a false statement was made before the Court in order to persuade it to grant bail to the petitioner.
5. It is settled law that a party has to approach the Court with clean hands and further when praying for a discretionary relief, neither anything should be concealed from the Court nor any false fact should be stated before the Court.
6. In the present case, as an endeavour was made on behalf of the petitioner to mislead the Court so as to persuade it to grant bail by making a false statement that even the discharge application filed by the petitioner was not being adjudicated upon by learned Trial Court which application purportedly stood filed four months back, whereas fact of the matter was that no such application was indeed filed by the petitioner as on the date when said statement was made, this Court is of the considered view that no indulgence under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code can be shown to the petitioner in the light of his conduct.
7. Accordingly, in view of the above, the present petition is dismissed.
(Ajay Mohan Goel)
Judge December 29, 2022 (Rishi)