Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:36990 Court No. - 78 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8749 of 2025 Applicant :- Dulare Alias Ramdulare Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kiran Yadav,Sanjay Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J. 1. Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr. Arvind Kumar, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and perused the record. 2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant-Dulare alias Ramdulare with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 399 of 2010, under Sections 302, 307, 120-B, 34 I.P.C., Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 25/27 Arms Act, Police Station Dakshin Tola, District Mau, during the pendency of trial. 3. At the outset, learned Additional Advocate General pointed out that in paragraph 30 of the affidavit filed in support of bail application, it is mentioned that applicant has no criminal history before present case, whereas apart from this case, applicant has criminal history of following six cases:- (i). Case Crime No. 51 of 2005, under Section 8/25 of NDPS Act, Police Station Sakaldiha, District Chandauli. (ii). Case Crime No. 87 of 2004, under Section 3/5/8 of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, Police Station Sakaldiha, District Chandauli. (iii). Case Crime No. 88 of 2004, under Section 4/25 Arms Act, Police Station Sakaldiha, District Chandauli. (iv). Case Crime No. 891 of 2010, under Section 3(1) of U.P. Gangster Act. (v). Case Crime No. 535 of 2007, under Section 307 of I.P.C. and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Dakshin Tola, District Mau. (vi). Case Crime No. 122 f 2023, under Section 3/25 Arms Act, Police Station Dakshin Tola, District Mau. 4. On putting query, learned counsel for the applicant could not dispute the aforesaid submission of learned Additional Advocate General and submits that deponent of this case is father of the applicant and he was not aware about criminal history of the applicant, therefore, the same has not been mentioned. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find that the applicant has not come with clean hand as he has suppressed and concealed the material facts about his criminal history, which is also one of the relevant aspect for considering the bail prayer of the applicant. 6. In view of judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Neeru Yadav vs. State of U.P., (2015) 3 SCC 527, criminal antecedents of the accused cannot be ignored while deciding bail application, discretionary powers of Courts to grant bail must be exercised in a judicious manner in case of a habitual offender. 7. The said judgment has been further followed by the Apex Court in the case of Sudha Singh vs. State of U.P. and another, (2021) 4 SCC 781. 8. The courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One, who comes to the Court, must come with clean hands and no material facts should be concealed. I am constrained to hold that more often the process of the court is being abused by unscrupulous litigants/accused to achieve their nefarious design. I have no hesitation in saying that a person, who has approached the Court concealing material facts is not entitled for any relief and such petition/application can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation. 9. Accordingly, the instant bail application is rejected without going into the merit of the case. 10. However, it is open for the applicant to move second bail application with better particulars. 11. Office is directed to return the certified copy of the F.I.R. to the counsel for the applicant within three days after retaining photocopy of the same on record. Order Date :- 17.3.2025 Kashifa Digitally signed by :- KASHIFA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad