Sanjay Kumar Singh, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and perused the record.

2. By means of this application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., applicant-Sunil Patel @ Brijesh Patel, who is involved in Case Crime No. 333 of 2021, under Sections 302, 201 and 404 IPC, Police Station Mirzamurad, District Varanasi, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial.

3. At the outset, learned Additional Government Advocate pointed out that in paragraph 22 of the affidavit filed in support of bail application, it is mentioned that applicant has no criminal history, bad antecedent and is also not a previous convict, whereas apart from this case, applicant has criminal history of following ten cases:-

(i) Case Crime No. 093 of 2015, under Section 110-G, Police Station Mirzamurad, District Varanasi.

(ii) Case Crime No. 345 of 2016, under Sections 109, 41 IPC, Police Station Mirzamurad, District Varanasi.

(iii) Case Crime No. 373 of 2017, under Sections 41, 411 IPC, Police Station Mirzamurad, District Varanasi.

(iv) Case Crime No. 257 of 2017, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Mirzamurad, District Varanasi.

(v) Case Crime No. 124 of 2018, under Sections 8/20 of N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station Mirzamurad, District Varanasi.

(vi) Case Crime No. 298 of 2018, under Sections 8/20 of N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station Mirzamurad, District Varanasi.

(vii) Case Crime No. 32 of 2020, under Sections 380, 457, 511 IPC, Police Station Mirzamurad, District Varanasi.

(viii) Case Crime No. 115 of 2021, under Section 60 of Excise Act, Police Station Mirzamurad, District Varanasi.

(ix) Case Crime No. 149 of 2021, under Sections 379, 411 IPC, Police Station Mirzamurad, District Varanasi.

(x) Case Crime No. 169 of 2021, under Section 10 of U.P. Control of Goondas Act, Police Station Mirzamurad, District Varanasi.

4. On putting query, learned counsel for the applicant could not dispute the aforesaid submission of learned A.G.A. and submits that since 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 [LQ/SC/2021/2730 ;] .

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.

10. However, it is open for the applicant to move second bail application with correct facts.