HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 8183 of 2025 Court No. - 71 HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR SINGH, J. 1-Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P., Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned counsel for the complainant and perused the record. 2-This Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application has been preferred by the applicant after rejection of his anticipatory bail application by order dated 25.09.2025 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Budaun seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 162 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 3(5), 352, 351(3) of B.N.S., Police Station Ughaiti, District Budaun. 3-On the matter being taken up, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, upon instructions, pointed out that apart from the instant case, the applicant has criminal history of three other criminal cases, whereas in paragraph no. 24 of the affidavit filed in support of the anticipatory bail application, it is mentioned that the applicant has no criminal history except the present case. Details of the said criminal history of the applicant are as under:- (i) Case Crime No. 01 of 2013, under Section 406 and 427 I.P.C., Police Station Ughaiti, District Budaun. (ii) Case Crime No. 116 of 2025, under Sections 126(2), 351(3) and 70(1) B.N.S., Police Station Ughaiti, District Budaun. (iii) Case Crime No. 161 of 2025, under Section 115(2), 117(2), 352 B.N.S. and Sections 3(1)ध, 3(1)द and 3(2)5A SC/ST Act, Police Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anjali Singh Tomer, Inder Pal Singh Tomar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Pankaj Kumar Satish Chandra .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) Station Ughaiti, District Budaun. 4-In response, learned counsel for the applicant submits that contents of paragraph no. 24 of this affidavit are based on the information given by the applicant himself. 5-Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find that learned counsel for the applicant is not in a position to controvert the aforesaid submissions of learned A.G.A. The Supreme Court in the case of Dalip Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, (2010) 2 SCC 114 came down heavily on unscrupulous litigants by holding that it is now well established that a litigant who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final. 6-In view of the above, this Court finds that the applicant has not come before this Court with clean hands as he has suppressed his actual criminal history, which is one of the essential factors for consideration of anticipatory bail, therefore, I am not inclined to exercise my discretionary power to grant benefit of anticipatory bail in favour of the applicant. 7-Accordingly, the instant application U/s 482 B.N.S.S. is rejected. October 14, 2025 Saurabh NABAIL No. 8183 of 2025 2 (Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- SAURABH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad