IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Crl.M.No.M-20195 of 2008 Date of Decision : 15.9.2008. Harmel Singh @ Banty ..Petitioner. Vs. State of Punjab ..Respondent. CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present : Mr.Pranabh Rai, Advocate for the petitioner. RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. This is a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.16 dated 20.2.2008, under Section 15/61/85 of NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Sadar, Nabha, District Patiala supported by an affidavit sworn by the petitioner Harmel Singh @ Banty son of Nirmal Singh @ Billu, resident of Rohti Channa, Police Station Sadar, Nabha, District Patiala in which it has been categorically mentioned in para 13 “That the petitioner has not filed any other such or similar petition either in this Hon'ble Court or in the Hon'ble Supreme Court in India.” From the report of the registry, I find that the same accused had earlier filed Criminal Misc.No.M-16576 of 2008 titled Harmel Singh Vs. State of Punjab through Sh.B.S.Bhalla, Advocate, which was got dismissed as withdrawn on 8.7.2008. However, in the present petition, this fact has been concealed. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs Vs. Jagannath (dead) by Crl.M.No.M-20195 of 2008 -2 L.Rs. and others AIR 1994 SC 853 that the Courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the court, must come with clean hands. It can be said without hesitation that a person whose case is based on falsehood has no right to approach the Court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation. A litigant, who approaches the court, is bound to produce all the documents executed by him which are relevant to the litigation. If he withholds a vital document in order to gain advantage on the other side then he would be guilty of playing fraud on the court as well as on the opposite party. Since the petitioner is guilty of suppresso veri and suggesto falsi, therefore, he is not entitled to any discretionary relief much less the anticipatory bail. Dismissed. (Rakesh Kumar Jain) 15.9.2008 Judge Meenu