The court allowed an application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondents 2, 3, and 4. It found they misled the court by claiming the amount was for land purchase, whereas facts established it was for a marriage.
Cancellation of bail granted to opposite party nos. 2, 3, and 4 vide order dated 06.02.2023.
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.21099 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1688 Year-2018 Thana- GAYA COMPLAINT CASE District- Gaya
======================================================
UMESH KUMAR SAHNI SON OF LATE RAVINDRA KUMAR SAHNI R/O VILLAGE- BHUSUNDA, P.S.- MUFFASIL, DISTRICT- GAYA
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Pankaj Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Brajendra Nath Pandey
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER
11 22-09-2023
This application has been filed for cancellation of
bail granted to the opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4 vide order dated 06.02.2023 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 58238 of 2021.
Learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant submits that the opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4 have obtained the anticipatory bail by misleading this Hon’ble Court as it was urged on their behalf that the alleged amount has been taken by them in lieu of purchase of land but there is no evidence showing transaction of land rather there aforesaid amount was taken in connection with marriage of daughter of the petitioner with Mantu Kumar. It was further argued that the amount which had been taken had already been returned to the complainant,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21099 of 2023(11) dt.22-09-2023 2/2
but more than three lakhs amount is still pending with the opposite party nos. 2 to 4. From the document enclosed as Annexure-3 obtained from the higher authorities of opposite party no. 2, it appears that the opposite party no. 2 has admitted the facts and circumstances of the marriage as well as transaction of money.
Learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 submits that the amount was taken for the purpose of purchase of land.
Considering the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and the facts and circumstances of the case, this court finds that the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 have obtained bail from this Court by placing misleading facts. The factum of marriage is very well established from the explanation submitted by the accused- Mantu Kumar to the higher authority. The prayer for cancellation of bail granted to the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 is allowed. The bail granted to the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 is, hereby, cancelled.
The application stands allowed.
(Arvind Srivastava, J)
mcv/-
U T
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the bail granted to opposite party nos. 2, 3, and 4 should be cancelled due to misleading facts regarding the cause of the transaction.
Umesh Kumar Sahni
The State of Bihar
Mantu Kumar
Chanddan Kumar
Geeta Devi
Arvind Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
