Read Order: Deen Mohd. v. State of Haryana 

Monika Rahar

Chandigarh, June 16, 2022:  While dealing with a case wherein the bail applicant concealed the factum of the first pre-arrest bail application filed by him and its subsequent dismissal, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has recently held that where a process is “ex debito justitiae”, the Court would refuse to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant if the application is found to be wanting in bona fides. 

Apprehending his arrest in an FIR registered under Sections 13(1) and 13(3) of Haryana Gauvansh Sanrakshan and Gausamvardhan Act, 2015 and Section 11 of Prevention of Animals of Cruelty Act, 1959 (later on added Section 120-B of the IPC and Sections 181/192 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988) at Police Station Sadar Palwal, District Palwal, petitioner was seeking pre-arrest bail.

The petitioner approached the Additional Sessions Judge, Palwal for pre-arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C., however, the same was declined by the Court on the ground that the applicant did not disclose, in his affidavit, the fact that his first application for anticipatory bail was dismissed as withdrawn. 

It was the case of the petitioner’s counsel that the reason recorded by the Sessions Court was not sufficient to decline the bail. “No other reason having been assigned by the Sessions Court, the order deserves to be set aside and the petitioner may be granted the concession of pre-arrest bail”, the Counsel argued. 

The Court observed at the very outset that the petitioner concealed the fact of filing the first application seeking pre-arrest bail and dismissal thereof from the Court and the Counsel for the petitioner very casually stated that the concealment of such fact alone cannot be a reason to dismiss the bail.

Against this backdrop, the Bench of Justice Pankaj Jain opined that the law is well settled that where a process is “ex debito justitiae” the Court would refuse to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant where the application is found to be wanting in bona fides. 

Reference in this regard was made to Welcome Hotel vs. State of Andhra Pradesh wherein it was held that a party which has misled the Court, is not entitled to any consideration at the hands of the Court.

In light of the above, the Court opined that the petitioner did not approach the Court seeking relief of pre-arrest bail with the clean hands and the Lower Court was thus justified in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner. 

The petition was thus dismissed. 

0 CommentsClose Comments

Leave a comment