Partly allowed

Anil Kumar and Ors. v. the State of Bihar

Patna HC4 Mar 2013CR. MISC./17829/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court scrutinized duplicate anticipatory bail applications filed by three petitioners in connection with the same criminal case. Finding that the subsequent application contained a deliberate lie that no earlier application existed, despite the prior one already being granted bail, the Court held the act intentional and harmful to the administration of justice.

What did the court decide?

Earlier order of bail (Cr. Misc. 22923 of 2012) rescinded; petitioners directed to surrender within six weeks; both applications dismissed.

Anil Kumar and Ors. Vs the State of Bihar — Anticipatory Bail | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.17829 of 2012

¶2

====================================================== 1. Anil Kumar S/O Hari Narain Singh Resident Of Village Nanhak Chak, Police Station- Bidupur, District- Vaishali 2. Sudhir Kumar @ Dhppu S/O Hari Narain Singh Resident Of Village Nanhak Chak, Police Station- Bidupur, District- Vaishali 3. Lala Kumar S/O Hari Narain Singh Resident Of Village Nanhak Chak, Police Station- Bidupur, District- Vaishali .... .... Petitioner/s

¶3

Versus

¶4

The State Of Bihar

¶5

.... .... Opposite Party/s

¶6

======================================================

¶7

with

¶8

Criminal Miscellaneous No.22923 of 2012

¶9

====================================================== 1. Anil Kumar S/O Late Hari Narayan Singh Resident Of Village Nanhakchak, P.S. Bidupur, District Vaishali. 2. Sudhir Kumar @ Dhappu S/O Late Hari Narayan Singh Resident Of Village Nanhakchak, P.S. Bidupur, District Vaishali. 3. Lala Kumar S/O Late Hari Narayan Singh Resident Of Village Nanhakchak, P.S. Bidupur, District Vaishali.

¶10

.... .... Petitioner/s Versus

¶11

The State Of Bihar

¶12

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER

¶13

9 04-03-2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on 26.4.2012 on behalf of Anil Kumar Singh, Sudhir Kumar alias Dhappu and Lala Kumar in connection with Bidupur P.S. Case no. 18 of 2012, registered for the offences punishable under sections 379/34 of the IPC when in the same P.S Case no. another

¶14

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17829 of 2012 (9) dt.04-03-2013

¶15

2/4

¶16

anticipatory bail application vide Cr. Misc. No. 22923 of 2012 on behalf of the aforesaid petitioners was filed on 18.6.2012 when they were granted anticipatory bail on 29.6.2012 by this court.

¶17

Both the applications were affidavited by Phulgam Devi, wife of Hari Narayan Singh, mother of petitioner nos. 1,2 and 3.

¶18

In both the applications, in paragraph no. 2 similar statement has been made that never any anticipatory or regular bail application has been filed when such statement in paragraph no. 2 of subsequent application i.e. Cr. Mis. No. 22923 of 2012 filed on 18.6.2012 is palpably false and deliberate.

¶19

Considering the facts and circumstances, notices were issued to deponent on 7.9.2012 who sworn both the affidavits of the two anticipatory bail applications and learned counsel Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh having AOR No. 00301 who filed through the subsequent application was directed to be present at the time of hearing though the earlier application was filed through Mr. Dhirendra Chaubey, learned Advocate, having AOR No. 00315.

¶20

It is submitted by learned counsel Mr. Dhirendra Chaubey that he filed the application at earlier point of time, hence, the onus does not lie on him to explain the situation when it is submitted by learned counsel Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh who filed the subsequent application, that the deponent did not give

¶21

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17829 of 2012 (9) dt.04-03-2013

¶22

3/4

¶23

proper instruction, hence, wrong statement was made in paragraph no. 2 of the bail application consequently subsequent application was filed.

¶24

Mr. Rakesh Kumar Tiwari, learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of deponent who sworn the affidavit of both the applications, submits that deponent is the mother of all the three petitioners and is an illiterate lady, hence she could not follow the contents of the petition drafted in English though explained to her in Hindi.

¶25

It is submitted on behalf of petitioners that under bonafide mistake the two anticipatory bail applications were directed to be filed.

¶26

After hearing the counsels for the parties, this court is of the view that the petitioners deliberately got filed two anticipatory bail applications through two different Advocates, one on 26.4.2012 and other on 18.6.2012 with a false statement in paragraph no. 2 of subsequent application that no anticipatory or regular bail application has been filed earlier when in the subsequent application i.e. in Cr. Misc. No. 22923 of 2012 they were granted anticipatory bail on 29.6.2012 by this court but the earlier bail application i.e. Cr. Misc. No. 17829 of 2012 filed on 26.4.2012 was subsequently taken up when this fraud was

¶27

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17829 of 2012 (9) dt.04-03-2013

¶28

4/4

¶29

detected.

¶30

In view of this court, the acts of the petitioners were deliberate who were the ultimate beneficiaries and it was designed to obstruct the administration of justice.

¶31

Considering the rival submissions and statement made in paragraph no. 9 of the bail application that petitioners have no criminal antecedent, the order dated 29.6.2012, passed in Cr. Misc. No. 22923 of 2012 in connection with Bidupur P.S. Case no. 18 of 2012 is hereby rescind. The petitioners are directed to surrender before the learned court below i.e. C.J.M. Vaishali within six weeks from today.

¶32

Let the Superintendent of Police, Vaishali at Hajipur take all necessary steps in ensuring the arrest of petitioners if they fail to surrender within the stipulated period of six weeks from today.

¶33

It is expected from learned counsel Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh to be careful in future in filing bail applications.

¶34

Accordingly, both the applications are dismissed.

¶35

Let this order be communicated to learned S.P. and

¶36

C.J.M., Vaishali through FAX.

¶37

(Dinesh Kumar Singh, J)

¶38

Anil/-

Anil Kumar and Ors. v. the State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar and Ors. v. the State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Binod Singh @ Dr. Binod Kumar Singh Vs The State Of Bihar Through The Vigilance Investigation Bureau

Arbind Bhagat Vs The State Of Bihar

Harish Chandra Sah Vs The State Of Bihar

Anshu Ankit Vs The State Of Bihar

Himanshu Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar

Lalan Kumar Jha Vs The State Of Bihar