The High Court at Patna dismissed an application seeking to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the opposite party. The court held that it was not inclined to interfere with the lower court's order based on the prima facie finding.
The application for cancellation of anticipatory bail was dismissed.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26961 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1540 Year-2015 Thana- BHABHU(KAIMUR) COMPLAIN C District- Kaimur (Bhabua)
======================================================
SHIVMUNI SINGH Son of Late Ramyash Singh, Resident of VillageKanhuan, P.S-Ramgarh, District-Kaimur (Bhabua).
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
... ... Opposite Party/s
====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Jitendra Narain Sinha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Ashok Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
This application has been filed for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to Opposite Party No. 2 by order, dated 11.05.2018, passed by learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Kaimur, at Bhabhua, in A.B.P. No. 684 of 2018, arising out of Complaint Case No. 1540 of 2015.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that Opposite Party No. 2 was granted anticipatory bail on the basis of the statement made by his Counsel that no case under Section 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner and only a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26961 of 2019(4) dt.29-08-2019 2/2
Instruments Act, 1881, is made out against the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case and has concealed the fact that the Opposite Party No. 2 had earlier preferred a revision application challenging the order by which learned Court below has taken cognizance under Sections 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. He submits that this amounts to concealment of facts on the part of Opposite Party No. 2.
After having heard learned Counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the learned Court below has granted anticipatory bail to Opposite Party No. 2 on coming to a prima facie finding that from perusal of the complaint, which relates to bouncing of cheque of Rs. 2,68,579/-, at best, an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is made out and on that premise, Opposite Party No. 2 has been granted anticipatory bail, I am not inclined to interfere with the order impugned.
This application is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J.)
Prabhakar Anand/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to cancel the anticipatory bail previously granted to the opposite party.
Whether concealment of facts regarding an earlier revision application justifies setting aside the bail order.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Shivmuni Singh
The State of Bihar
Ram Awtar Gupta
Anil Kumar Sinha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
