The Allahabad High Court cancelled the anticipatory bail of an advocate accused of concealing his criminal record. The court emphasized that as a practicing lawyer, he was expected to uphold the law, making his actions more serious. The bail had been granted earlier without full disclosure of his antecedents.
Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court annulled the anticipatory bail granted to an advocate accused of concealing prior criminal history, emphasizing that his status as a practicing lawyer worsened his case.
The Court accepted the bail cancellation application, overturning the earlier decision made by the Trial Court in a case involving serious allegations under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including 420, 467, and 506.
Justice Krishan Pahal, leading a Single Bench, stated,
“It is true that the opposite party no. 2 has criminal antecedents and that too has not been explained… the order granting anticipatory bail to the applicant cannot be sustained, and him being a practising advocate makes his case worse.”
He noted that the application for anticipatory bail was compromised by the accused’s failure to disclose his criminal past, which is a critical factor in such cases.
The High Court clarified that the standards for granting anticipatory bail differ significantly from those for regular bail, as they address different legal scenarios and objectives.
The Court remarked,
“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.”
It emphasized the importance of evaluating the criminal history of the accused, stating,
“If the accused has a history of criminal behavior, unexplained or otherwise, it could weigh heavily against the grant of anticipatory bail.”
Given the preventive nature of anticipatory bail, the Court highlighted that the conditions imposed are usually stricter to prevent misuse and to ensure that the accused does not interfere with the judicial process.
Consequently, the Court concluded,
“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.”
Thus, the High Court upheld the bail cancellation application.
Advocates Chandrika Patel and Gunjan Jadwani are representing the applicant in the case.
The opposite party is represented by Advocate Shubham Kesarwani and Assistant Government Advocate (AGA) Ashutosh Srivastava.
Concealing criminal antecedents refers to deliberately hiding or failing to disclose information about one’s past criminal record or history during situations where such disclosure is legally or ethically required. This could involve omitting or falsifying information about past convictions, charges, or investigations.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
