Court No. - 72
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15695 of 2021 Applicant :- Yogesh @ Yogendra Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Kailash Prasad Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
This is an application for bail moved on behalf of the accused- applicant, who is involved in Case Crime No. 929 of 2018, under sections 2/3 of U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, police station Nauhjheel, district Mathura, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial.
Heard Mr. Deepak Singh, holding brief of Mr. Kailash Prasad Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and perused the record.
According to the gang chart, the applicant is said to have been involved in four criminal cases being Case Crime No. 626 of 2018, under sections 379, 457, 411 IPC, Case Crime No. 679 of 2018, under sections 379, 457, 411 IPC, Case Crime No. 680 of 2018, under sections 379, 457, 411 IPC and Case Crime No.
731 of 2018, under sections 379, 457, 411 IPC registered at police station Nauhjheel, district Mathura.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that in all the aforesaid cases shown against the applicant in gang chart, the applicant is on bail.
In paragraph 17 of the bail application, it is mentioned that the applicant has no criminal antecedents except the present case and the cases shown in the gang chart, whereas learned Additional Government Advocate upon instructions received to him, pointed out that apart from four cases shown in the gang chart, the applicant has a criminal history of 21 cases, details of the same are as under:
(1) Case Crime No. 269 of 2015, under section 307 IPC, police station Nauhjheel, district Mathura.
(2) Case Crime No. 270 of 2015, under section 25/25 Arms Act, police station Nauhjheel, district Mathura.
(3) Case Crime No. 271 of nil, under section 18/20 NDPS Act, police station Nauhjheel, district Mathura.
(4) Case Crime No. 272 of 2015 under sections 41/102 Cr.P.C. and section 411, 414 IPC, police station Nauhjheel, district Mathura.
(5) Case Crime No.731 of 2015, under section 380, 457 IPC, police station Nauhjheel, district Mathura.
(6) Case Crime No. 233 of 2011, under section 110-G Cr.P.C. police station Nauhjheel, district Mathura.
(7) Case Crime No. 731 of 2018, under sections 379, 457, 411 IPC, police station Nauhjheel, district Mathura.
(8) Case Crime No. 252 of 2013, under sections 392, 307 IPC, police station Nauhjheel, district Mathura.
(9) Case Crime No. 207 of 2013, under sections 394, 307, 411 IPC, police station Nauhjheel, district Mathura.
(10) Case Crime No. 201 of 2013 under sections 392, 411 IPC, police station Nauhjheel, district Mathura.
(11) Case Crime No.198 of 2013, under sections 392, 411 IPC, police station Nauhjheel, district Mathura.
(12) Case Crime No.249 of 2015, under sections 452, 324, 504, 506 IPC, police station Nauhjheel, district Mathura.
(13) Case Crime No. 733 of 2018, under section 25 Arms Act, police station Nauhjheel, district Mathura.
(14) Case Crime No. 735 of 2018, under sections 41/102 Cr.P.C. and section 411, 414 IPC, police station Nauhjheel, district Mathura.
(15) Case Crime No. 52 of 2011 under section 25 Arms Act, police station Nauhjheel, district Mathura.
(16) Case Crime No. 258 of 2009 under section 25 Arms Act, police station Nauhjheel, district Mathura.
(17) Case Crime No. 251 of 2007, under section 376 IPC, police station Nauhjheel, district Mathura.
(18) Case Crime No. 382 of 2011, under section 379 IPC, police station Nauhjheel, district Mathura.
(19) Case Crime No. 383 of 2011, under section 307 IPC, police station Nauhjheel, district Mathura.
(20) Case Crime No. 392, of nil, under section 110 G, Cr.P.C, police station Nauhjheel, district Mathura.
(21) Case Crime No.732 of 2018, under section 307 IPC, police station Nauhjheel, district Mathura.
In view of aforesaid criminal history of 21 cases against the applicant, the contents of paragraph 17 of the bail application are apparently false and it is clear cut case of misrepresentation of facts before the Court concealing the complete criminal history of the applicant.
On the aforesaid preliminary objection as raised by learned Additional Government Advocate, learned counsel for the applicant, who is appearing in this case, is not in a position to explain the aforesaid criminal history of the applicant.
It is well settled that if the applicant is not come with clean hands, he is not entitled for any relief as sought for.
Having considered the facts as pointed out by the learned Additional Government Advocate as well as the averment made in paragraph 17 of the bail application and in the light of Section 19 (4) of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities Ac, without recording any finding on merit, I do not find any good ground to release the applicant on bail at this stage.
The application for bail is hereby rejected.
Order Date :- 7.4.2021 Sazia