Petitioner sought quashing of the Sessions Judge's dismissal of his application to cancel anticipatory bail granted on an alleged suppression of a pending 'no coercive steps' order. Holding there were no cogent grounds like misuse of liberty or tampering, and no suppression was established, the High Court dismissed the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Cr. M.P. No.361 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.361 of 2021
------
Shekhar Pramanick @ Sekhar Pramanick, Aged about 30 Years, Son of Dipankar Pramanick, Resident of House No.105/A New Sitaramdera, Agrico, P.O. and P.S. Agrico, District East Singhbum (Jharkhand). … Petitioner
Versus
| For the Petitioner | : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate |
|---|---|
| Mr. Sagar Kumar, Advocate | |
| For the State | : Ms. Sushma Aind, Addl. P.P. |
| For the O.P. No.2 | : Ms. Prachi Pradipti, Advocate |
| Mr. Rajan Kr. Tiwary, Advocate |
------
P R E S E N T
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court:- Heard the parties.
1
Cr. M.P. No.361 of 2021
G.R. No.1169 of 2020 which is now pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Jamshedpur.
2
Cr. M.P. No.361 of 2021
that case when the accused of the case while submitting his prayer for regular bail; mentioned in the bail application that no bail application, has either rejected by the High Court or pending for disposal before the High Court and on the basis of such declaration, bail was granted. The learned Sessions Judge upon considering a petition under Section 439 (2) of Cr.P.C. being filed with a prayer for cancellation of bail of the accused of the case, held that the suppression of earlier bail prayer to the High Court is a fraud practiced upon the court and cancelled the bail. The High Court observed that the Sessions Judge exercised its discretionary jurisdiction and submits that in this case the suppression of direction of ‘No coercive steps’ even when filed earlier, is a suppression of material facts. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer of the petitioner to quash the order dated 09.12.2020 passed by learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur in Criminal Misc. No.16 of 2020 whereby and where under the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the application filed by the petitioner for cancellation of bail granted to the opposite party No.2 vide order dated 07.09.2020 passed in A.B.P. No.534 of 2020 in connection with Sitaramdera P.S. Case No.66 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. No.1169 of 2020 which is now pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Jamshedpur, be allowed.
3
Cr. M.P. No.361 of 2021
dated 07.09.2020 passed in A.B.P. No.534 of 2020 in connection with Sitaramdera P.S. Case No.66 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. No.1169 of 2020 which is now pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Jamshedpur. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Bhuri Bai vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1779 paragraph-20 of which reads as under:-
“20. It had not been the case of the prosecution that the appellant had misused the liberty or had comported herself in any manner in violation of the conditions imposed on her. We are impelled to observe that power of cancellation of bail should be exercised with extreme care and circumspection; and such cancellation cannot be ordered merely for any perceived indiscipline on the part of the accused before granting bail. In other words, the powers of cancellation of bail cannot be approached as if of disciplinary proceedings against the accused and in fact, in a case where bail has already been granted, its upsetting under Section 439(2) CrPC is envisaged only in such cases where the liberty of the accused is going to be counteracting the requirements of a proper trial of the criminal case. In the matter of the present nature, in our view, over-expansion of the issue was not required only for one reason that a particular factor was not stated by the Trial Court in its order granting bail.”
and submits that it is a settled principle of law that unless there is allegation against the accused of misusing the liberty of bail or had comported in any manner in violation of the conditions imposed, there is no justifiable reason to cancel the bail.
Bengal (supra) in this case, no statement has been made by the opposite party No.2 before the learned Sessions Judge that he did not file any other case. It is
4
Cr. M.P. No.361 of 2021
also submitted that there is no specific order passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court for grant of bail to the opposite party No.2 or his prayer for anticipatory bail has ever been rejected. Hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P, being without any merit, be dismissed.
and there is no such allegation against the opposite party No.2. It is a settled principle of law that the object underlining the cancellation of bail is to protect the bare trial and to secure that justice being done to the society by preventing the accused who is set at liberty by the bail order from tampering with evidence; as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Panchanan Mishra v. Digambar Mishra & Others reported in (2005) 3 SCC 143.
5
Cr. M.P. No.361 of 2021
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Biman Chatterjee v. Sanchita Chatterjee & Another reported in (2004) 3 SCC 388.
G.R. No.1169 of 2020 which is now pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Jamshedpur, be quashed and set aside.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 16th of February, 2024 AFR/ Animesh
6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail granted to opposite party No.2 should be cancelled on the ground that he allegedly suppressed the pendency of a 'no coercive steps' order when seeking anticipatory bail.
Whether the Sessions Judge's order dismissing the cancellation application should be quashed under Section 482 CrPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sk. Farid @ Fariduddin vs. The State of West BengalDistinguished
Sk. Farid @ Fariduddin vs. The State of West Bengal
Bhuri Bai vs. The State of Madhya PradeshRelied on¶6
Bhuri Bai vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1779 · Who else cites this
Panchanan Mishra v. Digambar Mishra & OthersRelied on¶8
Panchanan Mishra v. Digambar Mishra & Others reported in (2005) 3 SCC 143 · Who else cites this
Biman Chatterjee v. Sanchita Chatterjee & AnotherRelied on¶9
Biman Chatterjee v. Sanchita Chatterjee & Another reported in (2004) 3 SCC 388 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Shekhar Pramanick @ Sekhar Pramanick
The State of Jharkhand
Naveen Prakash (Proprietor of M/s. Bharti Enterprises)
Anil Kumar Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court