Partly allowed

The State Of Bihar Through The Superintendent Of Police Namely Ajit Kumar Satyarthi v. Rohit Kumar Jha @ Rohit Jha

Patna HC24 Apr 2013CR. MISC./29759/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court cancelled bail granted to the respondent-opposite party on June 19, 2008. While the charge of suppressing antecedents was rejected due to timing, the court held that the respondent indulged in a series of crimes after release, causing cancellation under precedent.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to the respondent-opposite party in Cr.Misc.No. 8778/2008 dated 19.6.2008 is hereby cancelled.

The State Of Bihar Through The Superintendent Of Police Namely… — Bail and Remand | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.29759 of 2012

¶2

====================================================== The State Of Bihar Through The Superintendent Of Police Namely Ajit Kumar Satyarthi Resident Of Saharsa, P.S. Saharsa, District- Saharsa .... .... Petitioner Versus Rohit Kumar Jha @ Rohit Jha S/O Surendra Kumar Jha Resident Of Village- Muradhpur, P.S.- Nawhatta, District- Saharsa .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 4 24-04-2013 Heard Dr. Indiwar Kumari, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the petitioner State of Bihar as also Mr. Shiv Shankar Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the sole opposite party.

¶3

In this application a prayer has been made for cancellation of bail to the sole O.P. which was granted to him on 19.6.2008 in Cr.Misc.No. 8778/2008.

¶4

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that such bail of the O.P. was obtained by suppressing the fact that he was already accused in another criminal case in which he had already been remanded on 31.3.2008 and yet he had got it represented before this Court that he had got no criminal antecedent. She has further drawn attention of this Court that after the O.P. was released on bail in terms of the order dated 19.6.2008 he has been unabatedly indulging in various sort of crimes and in this regard specific stand has been given of Nauhatta P.S.Case No. 72/2011

¶5

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.29759 of 2012 (4) dt.24-04-2013

¶6

¶7

for offence under sections 386/120B I.P.C. and section 27 of the Arms Act, wherein the police has also submitted the charge sheet against the petitioner. She has also submitted that in yet another criminal case, Saharsa Town P.S.Case No. 92/2011 instituted for offence under sections 147, 148, 447, 504, 385, 506 I.P.C. and section 27 of the Arms Act the O.P. was named as an accused and in that case also the police has submitted a charge sheet.

¶8

Proceeding further she has also submitted that on 23.1.2012 the O.P. was again made an accused in Nauhatta P.S.Case No. 6/2012 registered under sections 386, 120B I.P.C. and section 27 of the Arms Act, in which O.P. being an accused the police having investigated the case has found its complicity and a charge sheet has been submitted against him. In the same whim she has also drawn attention that on 1.2.2012 the O.P. was made accused in Saharsa Sadar P.S.Case No. 66/2012 for offence under section 434 I.P.C. and section 27 of the Arms Act and in which the police also after investigation having found the complicity of the O.P. has submitted charge sheet. Finally she has also relied on the First Information Report of Saharsa P.S.Case No. 112/2012 instituted under section 384 I.P.C. wherein it is alleged that the O.P. had demanded Rs.50,000/- as Rangdari from one Neelam Kumari who was operating a clinic in the town of

¶9

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.29759 of 2012 (4) dt.24-04-2013

¶10

¶11

Saharsa. Having annexed the copy of the F.I.R. and the charge sheet learned counsel for the petitioner State of Bihar has submitted that such series of criminal activities of the O.P. by itself would disentitle him to continue on privilege of bail. In this regard she has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Aslam Babalal Desai v. Sate of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 1993 SC 1, as also on two unreported orders of this Court dated 24.9.2012 passed in Cr.Misc.No. 34893/2011 and another order dated 16.1.2013 in Cr.Misc.No. 33188/2012.

¶12

Notices in this case were issued to O.P. on 8.8.2012 and the learned counsel for O.P. having entered appearance has been also heard today.

¶13

Learned counsel for O.P. has submitted that there was no misrepresentation on the part of the O.P., inasmuch as the bail application, Cr.Misc.No. 8778/2008 was filed on 21.2.2008 and thus, whatever statement was given on oath before filing of that bail application as with regard to the O.P. having no criminal antecedent cannot be said to be a false information in view of the fact that the O.P. was only subsequently remanded on 31.3.2008 in relation to a First Information Report in which he was earlier not even named as an accused.

¶14

Considering this aspect this Court must hold that there

¶15

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.29759 of 2012 (4) dt.24-04-2013

¶16

¶17

was no suppression of fact by the O.P., inasmuch as after filing of the bail application if the petitioner was remanded in connection with an offence in which he was not named accused in the F.I.R. it was not possible for the Pairwikar to state so in the application. This Court would also readily accept the submission of the learned counsel for the O.P. that the counsel also could not have been informed of such remand being made on 31.3.2008.

¶18

That being so, the first ground for cancellation of bail of the O.P., namely, suppression of fact relating to his being accused in another criminal case in which he was remanded on 31.3.2008 must be and is hereby rejected.

¶19

Coming to the other aspect that the O.P. after being released on bail on 19.6.2008 in Cr.Misc.No. 8778/2008 has been repeatedly indulging in series of crime, as noted above, this Court will have no difficulty in holding that the O.P. on account of his subsequent activities has made himself liable for cancellation of his bail. A person accused in a criminal case after he has been granted bail has to remain vigilant and must ensure that he is not again made accused. There may be a case where a person can be falsely implicated in a case after being released on bail on account of animosity but where series of criminal cases are being filed against the O.P. this Court would find it difficult to accept the

¶20

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.29759 of 2012 (4) dt.24-04-2013

¶21

¶22

submission of the learned counsel for the O.P. that the O.P. has been framed in all such cases. It is this aspect of the matter which has been gone into by the Apex Court and this Court in the cases referred above.

¶23

Learned counsel for the O.P. also very fairly submits that he cannot deny that the O.P. has been made accused in five criminal cases after he was released on bail under the order of this Court dated 19.6.2008.

¶24

In that view of the matter, this Court following the ratio of the Apex Court in the case of Aslam Babalal Desai (supra) must cancel the bail of the O.P.

¶25

That being so, the bail granted to the O.P. in the order dated 19.6.2008 in Cr.Misc.No. 8778/2008 is hereby cancelled.

¶26

Let this order be communicated to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharsa in connection with Mahisi P.S.Case No. 92/2007.

¶27

With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of.

¶28

(Mihir Kumar Jha, J)

¶29

surendra/-

The State Of Bihar Through The Superintendent Of Police Namely Ajit Kumar Satyarthi v. Rohit Kumar Jha @ Rohit Jha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State Of Bihar Through The Superintendent Of Police Namely Ajit Kumar Satyarthi v. Rohit Kumar Jha @ Rohit Jha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rana Nand Ram Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Taswari Begum Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Dr.Jagat Narayan Nayak Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Deoki Nandan Roys Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Chaturbhuj Manjhi Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Laxmi Kumari Devi Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.