Application to cancel bail earlier granted to the second respondent, alleging suppression of criminal antecedents and prior custody during the original bail application. The APP argued there was no suppression or misuse, and the court, noting no ground for cancellation existed, rejected the application.
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.11235 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-10 Year-2023 Thana- BOCHAHAN District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Indu Devi W/O Ashok Prasad Singh R/O VILLAGE- LOHSARI, PS. BOCHAHAN, DIST.MUZAFFARPUR.
... ... Petitioner/s
... ... Opposite Party/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Shambhu Nath, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Lalan Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH
ORAL ORDER
to the Opposite Party No. 2 by this Court vide order dated 18.12.2023 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 76531 of 2023 in connection with Bochahan P.S Case No. 10 of 2023 pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate-1 , Muzaffarpur (East).
2 . Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the O.P. No. 2 got the privilege of bail with mala fide intention by suppressing the fact that the the OP No. 2 has deliberately suppressed the fact that he was accused in Runisaidpur P.S. Case No. 228 of 2023 and hence have criminal antecedents. It is further submitted that in course of hearing, the OP No. 2 has also suppressed the fact that he has already taken into custody in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11235 of 2024(2) dt.16-02-2024 2/3
Bochahan P. S. Case No. 10 of 2023 prior to 18.12.2023 therefore, the bail allowed to the O.P. No. 2 vide order dated 18.12.2023.
3 . Learned A.P.P. for the State has submitted that there is no suppression of material fact by the petitioner. Learned APP has further submitted that the petitioner never misused the privilege of bail granted by the Hon’ble Court. It is further submitted that there is no suppression of fact about the criminal antecedents as the criminal antecedents is clearly mentioned in the bail order dated 18.12.2023 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 76531 of 2023. Learned counsel has placed the reliance on the judgment of Abdul Basit @ Raju & Ors. Etc. Md. Abdul Kadir Chaudhary (2014) 10 SCC 754 in which the Supreme Court noted that “the considerations for grant of bail and cancellation thereof are entirely different. The bail could be cancelled if the court is satisfied that after being released on bail”:-
“(a) The accused has misused the liberty granted to
him;
(b) flouted the conditions of the bail order;
(c) that the bail was granted in ignorance of statutory provisions restricting the powers of the court to grant bail;
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11235 of 2024(2) dt.16-02-2024 3/3
misrepresentation or fraud”.
4 . In light of the aforementioned facts, none of the
aforementioned conditions existed to cancel the bail. Accordingly, the instant application for cancellation of bail granted to the Opposite Party No. 2 is rejected.
(Chandra Prakash Singh, J)
guddukr/-
U T
1 issue framed by the court
Whether bail granted to OP No. 2 should be cancelled on grounds of alleged suppression of criminal antecedents and custody status.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Abdul Basit @ Raju & Ors. Etc. Md. Abdul Kadir ChaudharyRelied on¶3
(2014) 10 SCC 754 · Who else cites this
Indu Devi W/O Ashok Prasad Singh
The State of Bihar
Prabhakar Kumar S/O Umashankar Singh
Chandra Prakash Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
