Anticipatory Bail Denied for Concealment of Criminal Antecedents and Alleged Role as Main Conspirator

The applicant, Mohd. Mateen, sought anticipatory bail regarding FIR No. 0256 of 2024 registered at P.S. Rajpur, District Dehradun

The prosecution alleged that the applicant, along with eight others, prepared three forged powers of attorney (PoA) by impersonating a lady residing in the USA to grab her bungalow in Dehradun

While the applicant claimed he was merely a witness to the PoA and sought parity with co-accused who were granted bail, the State contended he was the main conspirator and had suppressed a criminal antecedent (Case Crime No. 0331 of 2021) in his application

The Sessions Judge had previously rejected his bail application on 01.04.2026

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the protection of anticipatory bail despite the suppression of material facts regarding his criminal history

2. Whether the applicant can claim the benefit of parity with co-accused when he is identified as the main conspirator and the previous bail orders lacked merit-based deliberation

The court applied the principles governing the grant of anticipatory bail under the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), specifically in relation to Section 62 (Forgery) read with Section 329(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023

It relied on the equitable principle that a person seeking discretionary relief must approach the court with "clean hands," and that non-disclosure of criminal antecedents disentitles an applicant to such relief

Furthermore, it applied the principle that "parity" is not a binding rule if the roles of the accused are distinct or if the earlier orders did not discuss the merits of the case

The court found that the applicant "deliberately suppressed" his criminal history, specifically a 2021 case in Saharanpur, which violated the requirement of approaching the court with clean hands

Upon perusing the forged documents, the Court observed that the applicant was not a mere witness but the "main conspirator" who identified impersonators to facilitate the fraud

The Court rejected the plea of parity, noting that the orders granting bail to co-accused contained no "deliberation nor discussion" on the merits, and therefore did not serve as a valid precedent for the applicant, whose role was more central to the conspiracy

It held that the suppression of material facts (criminal antecedents) and the applicant's role as the primary conspirator in the forgery and impersonation scheme disentitled him to discretionary relief

No order as to costs was made