Patna High Court
Pramod Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 23 July, 2026
Author: Sandeep Kumar
Bench: Sandeep Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.54892 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-6 Year-2024 Thana- KHIRI MORE District- Patna
======================================================
Pramod Kumar Son Of Ramayan Yadav R/O- Village- Dahiya, P.S.- Khiri
More, Distt.- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. Madhes Kumar @ Ankit @ Madhes Yadav Son Of Late Ramdeo Yadav
R/O- Village- Dahiya, P.S.- Khiri More, Distt.- Patna
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dineshwar Tiwary, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Jha, APP
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Ashok Kumar Sinha, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 23-07-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
APP for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party
no.2.
2. The present application has been filed by the
petitioner-informant under Section 439(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, for cancellation of the regular bail
granted to the opposite party no.2, namely, Madhes Kumar @
Ankit @ Madhes Yadav, by a Coordinate Bench of this Court,
vide order dated 20.06.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No.41671 of
2024, in connection with Khiri More P.S. Case No.06 of 2024,
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54892 of 2024 dt.23-07-2026
2/46
149, 341, 323, 325, 308 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and
Section 27 of the Arms Act. The principal ground urged is that
the said order was obtained by suppressing the criminal
antecedents of the opposite party no.2 and by misrepresenting
the nature of the injuries sustained by the injured persons, in
paragraph nos. 3 and 7 of his bail petition.
3. The prosecution case, as per the fardbeyan of the
petitioner-informant recorded on 05.01.2024 at about 23:45
hours, is that on the same day, at about 6:30 P.M., eighteen
named accused persons of his own village, including the
opposite party no.2, armed with lathi, danda and pistols, came
to his door on account of an old dispute and started hurling
abuses. When the informant and his family members protested
and forbade them, the accused persons assaulted the informant
with lathi and danda. Thereupon, the opposite party no.2,
Madhes Yadav, along with the co-accused Awadhesh Yadav,
Rahul Kumar, Chandan Kumar and Krishna Yadav, opened fire
from the pistols in their hands with the intention to kill, as a
result whereof Suman Yadav and Savitri Kumari, the gotias of
the informant, and Amit Kumar of the village sustained gunshot
injuries, while the cousin of the informant was injured by lathi
blows. The injured were sent to AIIMS, Patna, for treatment. In
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54892 of 2024 dt.23-07-2026
3/46
the fardbeyan, the informant further alleged that the opposite
party no.2 is a man of criminal disposition who had come out of
jail only a few days prior to the occurrence.
4. On the basis of the said fardbeyan, Khiri More
P.S. Case No.06 of 2024 was registered on 06.01.2024 for the
offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323,
325, 308 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the
Arms Act. As per the seizure list, three empty cartridge cases
bearing the punch mark 7.65 on their base and two live
cartridges of the same bore were seized from the place of
occurrence in the presence of independent witnesses.
5. The opposite party no.2 was taken into custody
on 30.01.2024. He, thereafter, moved this Court for grant of
regular bail by filing Cr. Misc. No.41671 of 2024. In paragraph
no.3 of the said bail petition, he averred that he has fair
antecedent except Sahar P.S. Case No.184 of 2021, instituted for
the offences under Sections 25(1-B)(a)/26 of the Arms Act.
Further, in paragraph no.7 thereof, he averred that the injured
persons had been treated at AIIMS, Patna, and that the injuries
are not grievous in nature.
6. The said bail petition was allowed by a
Coordinate Bench of this Court vide the order dated 20.06.2024,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54892 of 2024 dt.23-07-2026
4/46
which is impugned in the present proceeding. The relevant
portion of the said order reads thus:-
"4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has submitted that the petitioner is
innocent and has falsely been
implicated in this case. There is general
and omnibus allegation against the
petitioner. The injuries sustained by the
informant's sides are simple in nature.
Both the parties are co-villagers.
Nothing has been recovered from the
conscious possession of the petitioner.
The petitioner has clean antecedent as
stated in para 3 of the bail petition. The
petitioner is in custody since
30.01.2024.
5
. Learned A.P.P. for the State has
vehemently opposed the bail petition of
the petitioner.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and
circumstances of the case as well as the
period of custody, the petitioner above-
named, is directed to be enlarged on
bail on furnishing bail-bond of
Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand)
with two sureties of the like amount
each to the satisfaction of learned Court
concerned, Danapur in connection with
Khiri More P.S. Case No. 06 of 2024,
with a condition:
(i) The petitioner is directed to remain
physically present before the learned
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54892 of 2024 dt.23-07-2026
5/46Court below on each and every date,
failing which on two consecutive dates
without reasonable cause, the bail bond
of the petitioner is liable to be
cancelled.
7. The application stands allowed.”
(emphasis supplied)
7. At the outset, the learned counsel for the
petitioner has submitted that the impugned order dated
20.06.2024 is vitiated, having been obtained by the opposite
party no.2 upon a deliberate suppression of his criminal
antecedents. It is pointed out that, as against the solitary case
disclosed in paragraph no.3 of the aforesaid bail petition, the
opposite party no.2 was, on the date of filing of the said petition,
an accused in as many as five criminal cases, namely, :-
(i) Paliganj P.S. Case No.54 of 2012,
under Sections 341, 323, 504, 384 and
379 of the Indian Penal Code;
(ii) Khiri More P.S. Case No.63 of
2014, under Sections 323, 324 and
354 of the Indian Penal Code;
(iii) Khiri More P.S. Case No.59 of
2015, under Sections 341, 323, 504/34
of the Indian Penal Code;
(iv) Sahar P.S. Case No.111 of 2019,
under Sections 302/120-B/34 of the
Indian Penal Code, being a case of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54892 of 2024 dt.23-07-2026
6/46
murder; and
(v) Sahar P.S. Case No.184 of 2021,
under Sections 25(1-B)(a)/26 of the
Arms Act.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has
emphasised that the suppression practised by the opposite party
no.2 is twofold. In the first place, four out of the five criminal
cases, including the case of murder, were wholly concealed
from this Court. In the second place, even the solitary case
which was disclosed, namely, Sahar P.S. Case No.184 of 2021
under the Arms Act, was disclosed as a mere accusation,
whereas the opposite party no.2 had, in fact, been convicted in
the said case by the learned A.C.J.M.-VI, Bhojpur at Ara,
against which Cr. Appeal No.54 of 2023 is pending before the
learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Bhojpur at Ara. It is,
therefore, the categorical submission of the learned counsel for
the petitioner that a man who stands convicted under the Arms
Act, and who is alleged in the present case to have fired upon
three persons with a pistol, falsely portrayed himself before this
Court as a man of fair antecedent and thereby obtained the
privilege of bail.
9. It is next submitted that the said
misrepresentation was neither idle nor inconsequential. The
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54892 of 2024 dt.23-07-2026
7/46
impugned order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court
enlarging the opposite party no.2 on bail, itself records, in
paragraph no.4 thereof, that the petitioner has clean antecedent
as stated in para 3 of the bail petition. This demonstrates that the
false portrayal of clean antecedents was expressly noticed by the
Coordinate Bench while exercising its discretion in favour of
the opposite party no.2, and that the consideration of the prayer
for bail proceeded upon an erroneous and false premise induced
by the opposite party no.2 himself.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has
further submitted that the opposite party no.2 equally
misrepresented the nature of the injuries sustained by the injured
persons. In paragraph no.7 of the bail petition, it was asserted
that the injuries are not grievous in nature. It is emphasised by
the learned counsel for the petitioner that the injury reports of
AIIMS, Patna, dated 05.01.2024, which were suppressed, tell a
totally different story. They describe the two penetrating
gunshot wounds sustained by Savitri Kumari, a girl of about
seventeen years, as grievous in nature, and they record that the
injured Suman Yadav sustained penetrating gunshot wounds on
the right upper quadrant of the abdomen and on the flank, the
abdomen being a vital region of the body. It is submitted that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54892 of 2024 dt.23-07-2026
8/46
opposite party no.2 thus suppressed the actual injury reports and
placed a false and diluted picture of the medical evidence before
this Court.
11. It is also submitted by the learned counsel
for the petitioner that the concealment cannot be said to be
inadvertent, inasmuch as the fardbeyan itself recited that the
opposite party no.2 is a man of criminal disposition who had
come out of jail only a few days prior to the occurrence.
Reliance has been placed upon the decisions of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Kusha Duruka v. State of Odisha, reported
as (2024) 4 SCC 432, Kaushal Singh v. State of Rajasthan,
reported as 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1473 = 2025 INSC 871,
Deepak Yadav v. State of U.P. & Anr., reported as (2022) 8
SCC 559, Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. & Anr., reported as
(2014) 16 SCC 508, State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan etc.,
reported as 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1702, and upon the recent
pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the
case of Rajni v. State of Punjab & Anr., reported as 2026 SCC
OnLine SC 1050.
12. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
the State has supported the prayer for cancellation of bail and
had not disputed the fact that the opposite party no.2, who is a
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54892 of 2024 dt.23-07-2026
9/46
previously convicted accused with a pending case of murder
against him, had obtained bail from this Court by projecting
himself as a man of clean antecedents. It is also submitted that
the parties are co-villagers and the witnesses, including the
injured, are vulnerable to being influenced. Lastly, it is
submitted that the privilege of bail, obtained by such
misrepresentation, deserves to be withdrawn.
13. Per contra, the learned counsel for the
opposite party no.2 has opposed the present application. It is
submitted that the considerations governing the cancellation of
bail stand on a footing entirely different from those governing
its grant, and that bail once granted is not to be cancelled in a
routine, mechanical or punitive manner in the absence of misuse
of the liberty, breach of the conditions of bail, interference with
the trial, threat to the witnesses or an attempt to abscond. It is
emphasised that ever since his enlargement, the opposite party
no.2 has never misused the privilege of bail, that he has been
regularly attending the learned Court below, and that the present
application discloses no supervening circumstance whatsoever.
Reliance has been placed upon the decisions of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the cases of Dolat Ram & Ors. v. State of
Haryana, reported as (1995) 1 SCC 349, Abdul Basit @ Raju
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54892 of 2024 dt.23-07-2026
10/46
& Ors. v. Mohd. Abdul Kadir Chaudhary & Anr., reported as
(2014) 10 SCC 754, and Himanshu Sharma v. State of
Madhya Pradesh, reported as (2024) 4 SCC 222.
14. On the aspect of the non-disclosure of the
criminal antecedents, the learned counsel for the opposite party
no.2 has submitted that the criminal antecedents enumerated
hereinabove are admitted in paragraph no.4 of the counter
affidavit. It is, however, sought to be explained, in paragraph
nos. 5, 6 and 8 thereof, that the pairvikar of the opposite party
no.2, at the time of filing of the bail petition, could not disclose
the real criminal antecedents to the learned counsel appearing
therein due to lack of knowledge and disclosed only Sahar P.S.
Case No.184 of 2021, and that the mistake was not made by the
opposite party no.2 intentionally or deliberately, rather it
occurred due to the mistake of the pairvikar, for which the
opposite party no.2 has tendered his apologies. The relevant
paragraphs of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the
opposite party no.2 read as under:-
“4. That it is stated here that petitioner also
implicated and made accused in (I)
Paliganj P.S. Case No. 54 of 2012
registered under Sections
341,323,504,384,379 of Indian Penal
Code in which he is on bail. (II) Khiri
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54892 of 2024 dt.23-07-2026
11/46More P.S. Case No. 63 of 2014
registered under Sections 323,324,354
of Indian Penal Code in which matter
has compromise and compromise
petition filed before learned court below
and he is on bail. (III) Khiri More P.S.
Case No. 59 of 2015 registered under
Sections 341,323,504/34 of Indian
Penal Code in which O.P. No.- 2
acquitted by learned trial court by
order/judgment dated 19-04-2025. (IV)
Sahar P.S. Case No. 111 of 2019
registered under Section 302/34 of
Indian Penal Code in which he is on
bail. (V) Sahar P.S. Case No. 184 of
2021 registered under Section 25(1-
b)a / 26 of the Arms Act in which O.P.
No. 2 convicted by learned A.C.J.M.-
VI, Bhojpur at Ara and appeal is
pending bearing Cr. Appeal No. 54 of
2023 before learned Additional Sessions
Judge- II, Bhojpur at Ara and O.P. No.
2 is on bail.
5. That it is stated here that the pairvikar
of O.P. No. 2 at the time of filing bail
could not disclosed real criminal
antecedent before learned counsel only
he disclosed that petitioner is accused
in Sahar P.S. Case No. 184 of 2021
therefore learned counsel only
mentioned in Para- 3 of bail application
that petitioner is accused in Sahar P.S.
Case No. 184 of 2021 which is clear
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54892 of 2024 dt.23-07-2026
12/46
from the Para- 5 of cancellation of bail
petition.
6. That it is stated and submitted here that
pairvikar of O.P. No. – 2 have no
knowledge regarding the criminal
antecedents of petitioner/ O.P. No.2
therefore he could not disclosed the real
fact before learned counsel.
7. That it is stated here that in the main
bail petition in Para- 7 statements has
made that the injured persons have
treated in AIIMS, Patna Suman Yada
has sustained two gunshot and Savitri
Kumari has also sustained two gun
shots on left thigh which is not vital part
of body, thus injuries are not grievous in
nature, but no specific allegation
against the petitioner rather allegation
is general and omnibus.
8. That it is stated and submitted here that
this mistake has not been made by O.P.
No.- 2 intentionally and deliberately
rather same has occurred due to
mistake by the pairvikar of O.P. No.- 2
due to lack of knowledge for which O.P.
No.- 2 is tendered apologies.”
15. It is further submitted on behalf of the
opposite party no.2 that the opposite party no.2 has since been
acquitted in Khiri More P.S. Case No.59 of 2015 vide the
judgment dated 19.04.2025 of the learned Trial Court, and that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54892 of 2024 dt.23-07-2026
13/46
he is on bail in the remaining cases. Lastly, it is submitted that
the mere pendency of other criminal cases is not, by itself, a
ground to deny bail, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Prabhakar Tewari v. State of U.P. & Anr., reported as (2020) 11
SCC 648.
16. I have heard learned counsel for the parties
and considered their submissions. I have also perused the
materials available on record, including the order dated
20.06.2024 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
enlarging the opposite party no.2 on bail. It is apposite to note,
at this stage, that the learned Judge who had granted bail vide
the order dated 20.06.2024 has since demitted office, and the
present application has, accordingly, been placed before this
Bench.
17. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties
and on a conspectus of the materials on record, the moot
question that arises for consideration in the present application
is whether the order dated 20.06.2024, granting regular bail to
the opposite party no.2, was obtained by the suppression and
misrepresentation of material facts, so as to vitiate the said order
and warrant its annulment by this Court.
18. Before adverting to the rival contentions, it
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54892 of 2024 dt.23-07-2026
14/46
would be apposite to notice the settled law governing the subject
matter. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of State of
Karnataka v. Sri Darshan etc. (supra), has exhaustively
surveyed the entire jurisprudence on the subject and has held as
under:-
“18. Let us now examine the jurisprudence
on when bail may be annulled or
cancelled. Two distinct categories have
emerged in this regard:
(A) Annulment of Bail due to
legal infirmity in the order; and(B) Cancellation of Bail, i.e.,
revocation of bail due to post-
grant misconduct or supervening
circumstances.
(A). Annulment of bail orders
18.1. This refers to the appellate or
revisional power to set aside a bail
order that is perverse, unjustified, or
passed in violation of settled legal
principles. It is concerned with defects
existing at the time the bail was
granted, without reference to
subsequent conduct.
xxxx
(d) Non-consideration of material facts
by the High Court
22.4. An order that overlooks material
evidence or proceeds on an erroneous
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54892 of 2024 dt.23-07-2026
15/46
premise is perverse, and such
perversity forms a valid ground for
cancellation or setting aside of bail.”
(emphasis supplied)
19. The illustrative circumstances in which an
order granting bail may itself be set aside were summarised by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Yadav v. State
of U.P. & Anr. (supra), as under:-
“33. It is no doubt true that cancellation of
bail cannot be limited to the occurrence
of supervening circumstances. This
Court certainly has inherent powers and
discretion to cancel the bail of an
accused even in the absence of
supervening circumstances. Following
are the illustrative circumstances where
the bail can be cancelled:-
xxxx
33.3. Where the past criminal record and
conduct of the accused is completely
ignored while granting bail.
33.4. Where bail has been granted on
untenable grounds.
33.5. Where serious discrepancies are found
in the order granting bail thereby
causing prejudice to justice.
xxxx” (emphasis supplied)
20. The distinction between the cancellation of
bail on account of supervening circumstances or misuse of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54892 of 2024 dt.23-07-2026
16/46
liberty, on the one hand, and the annulment or setting aside of an
unjustified, illegal or perverse order granting bail, on the other,
was lucidly explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
of Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. & Anr. (supra), in the following
words:-
“12. We have referred to certain principles to
be kept in mind while granting bail, as
has been laid down by this Court from
time to time. It is well settled in law that
cancellation of bail after it is granted
because the accused has misconducted
himself or of some supervening
circumstances warranting such
cancellation have occurred is in a
different compartment altogether than
an order granting bail which is
unjustified, illegal and perverse. If in a
case, the relevant factors which should
have been taken into consideration
while dealing with the application for
bail and have not been taken note of,
or bail is founded on irrelevant
considerations, indisputably the
superior court can set aside the order
of such a grant of bail. Such a case
belongs to a different category and is in
a separate realm. While dealing with a
case of second nature, the Court does
not dwell upon the violation of
conditions by the accused or the
supervening circumstances that have
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54892 of 2024 dt.23-07-2026
17/46happened subsequently. It, on the
contrary, delves into the justifiability
and the soundness of the order passed
by the Court.” (emphasis supplied)
21. The position has been reiterated by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajwar v. Waseem & Anr.,
reported as (2024) 10 SCC 768, wherein it has been held that
although bail once granted ought not to be cancelled in a
mechanical manner, an unreasoned or perverse order of bail is
always open to interference by the superior Court, and that bail
can be revoked where the Court granting it has ignored the
relevant material available on record, even if the accused has
not misused the bail granted to him. A three-Judge Bench had
earlier taken the same view in Vipan Kumar Dhir v. State of
Punjab & Anr., reported as (2021) 15 SCC 518, holding that,
apart from cancellation for supervening misconduct, a superior
Court may set aside an order granting bail where relevant
material has been ignored or irrelevant factors have been taken
into account.
22. From the aforequoted judgments, a twofold
touchstone emerges. The cancellation of bail on the ground of
misconduct requires cogent and overwhelming supervening
circumstances. The annulment of an order granting bail which is
illegal, perverse or passed in ignorance of the relevant material,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54892 of 2024 dt.23-07-2026
18/46
on the other hand, is concerned with the defects existing at the
time of the grant itself, and may be exercised irrespective of any
subsequent misconduct on the part of the accused. An order
which proceeds upon an erroneous premise, induced by the
accused himself, falls squarely within the second category.
23. The law is equally well settled that a litigant
who obtains an order from a Court of law by suppressing or
misrepresenting material facts commits fraud upon the Court,
and such an order is vitiated at its very inception. In S.P.
Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by LRs. v. Jagannath (Dead) by
LRs. & Ors., reported as (1994) 1 SCC 1, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court held that the courts of law are meant for imparting justice
between the parties, and one who comes to the court must come
with clean hands. A person whose case is based on falsehood
has no right to approach the court and can be summarily thrown
out at any stage of the litigation.
24. The consequence of fraud upon the judicial
process was stated in emphatic terms by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of A.V. Papayya Sastry & Ors. v. Government
of A.P. & Ors., reported as (2007) 4 SCC 221. A judgment,
decree or order obtained by playing fraud on the court is a
nullity and non est in the eye of law, and it has to be treated as a
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54892 of 2024 dt.23-07-2026
19/46
nullity by every court, whether superior or inferior. It can be
challenged in any court, at any time, in appeal, revision, writ or
even in collateral proceedings. It follows that the recall or
cancellation of an order procured by playing fraud is not a
review barred by Section 362 of the Code, rather it is a
declaration that the order never had a legal existence.
25. The aforesaid principle has been applied
specifically to bail proceedings by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case of Kusha Duruka v. State of Odisha (supra),
wherein it has been observed that the suppression of material
facts from the court of law is actually playing fraud with the
court, and the maxim suppressio veri, expressio falsi, that is to
say, the suppression of the truth is equivalent to the expression
of falsehood, stands attracted to such conduct. It has further
been observed therein that a litigant who attempts to pollute the
stream of justice, or who touches the pure fountain of justice
with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief.
26. A Coordinate Bench of this Court, in the
case of Mohd. Rustam v. State of Bihar, reported as 2017 SCC
OnLine Pat 3929, applied the very same principle to a bail
order obtained by concealing criminal antecedents, and held as
under:-
“19. The antecedent of the applicant, seeking
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54892 of 2024 dt.23-07-2026
20/46anticipatory bail, is one of the four
considerations statutorily prescribed as
condition precedent for the High Court
or Court in Sessions to grant
anticipatory bail. There being statutory
requirement to this effect, under Section
438 of the Code, this Court had called
for a report from the district police as
regards petitioner’s criminal
antecedent. The petitioner had
apparently not disclosed his criminal
antecedent in his application. The
district police, more particularly
opposite party No. 3, misled this Court
by giving false information that
opposite party No. 2 had no criminal
antecedent. This requirement is not
there either under Section 437 or
Section 439 of the Code. Laying down
in the Statute itself, as to what would be
the considerations for grant of
anticipatory bail, is of great
significance and its importance cannot
be undermined. If the Court was
fraudulently misled to exercise power
under Section 438 of the Code by
supplying wrong information
collusively, an exercise to cancel
anticipatory bail, so granted, shall not
amount to review of the order rather a
mere declaration that the order
granting anticipatory bail was obtained
by fraud.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54892 of 2024 dt.23-07-2026
21/46xxxx
23. The plea that even if a fraud of any
nature is detected while allowing an
application for anticipatory bail,
subsequently the same cannot be
cancelled by the High Court in any
circumstance is not acceptable to me.
For example, if by way of tampering or
interpolations in the First Information
Report itself, a person succeeds in
obtaining anticipatory bail, will the
High Court be not justified in cancelling
the anticipatory bail, so granted, if
fraud is detected subsequently? The
game played by the police in the present
case by making available to the High
Court a false information to help the
Opposite Party No. 2, in my view, is a
good ground for cancellation of bail
because criminal antecedent of the
accused has been provided as
consideration for grant of anticipatory
bail in the Code itself. The High Court
has wide powers to pass appropriate
orders to prevent abuse of process of the
Court and to otherwise secure ends of
justice under Section 482 of the Code.
Once fraud is detected and established,
the High Court shall be well within its
jurisdiction and can certainly exercise
its power under Section 482 of the
Code, even for the purpose of
cancellation of bail in appropriate
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54892 of 2024 dt.23-07-2026
22/46cases.
24. Considering the long list of cases
pending against opposite party No. 2
and taking into account the fact that the
information with respect to his criminal
antecedent was suppressed deliberately,
I consider it to be a fit case for
cancellation of bail granted to opposite
party No. 2 by order of this Court, dated
29.3.2012, passed in Criminal Misc. No.
39834 of 2011.” (emphasis supplied)
27. In the aforesaid decision wherein the bail
obtained by an accused upon a false projection of clean
antecedents, when he was, in fact, implicated in about seventeen
criminal cases, was cancelled in exercise of the power under
Section 439(2) of the Code, and the Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court had held, following A.V. Papayya Sastry (supra) and
Abdul Basit (supra), that the recall of an order obtained by fraud
is not a review barred by Section 362 of the Code. It is true that
in the aforesaid decision of Mohd. Rustam (supra) the orders
cancelled were orders of anticipatory bail, granted under a
provision in which the antecedents of the applicant are a
statutorily enumerated consideration. The principle, however, is
not confined to Section 438 of the Code. The duty of candour
flows not from the text of any particular provision but from the
character of bail as a discretionary relief, and its breach has been
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54892 of 2024 dt.23-07-2026
23/46
visited with cancellation in cases of regular bail as well, as the
decisions noticed hereinafter demonstrate.
28. The obligation of the accused to place his
criminal antecedents before the Court considering his prayer for
bail has recently been emphasised by a three-Judge Bench of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kaushal Singh v. State of
Rajasthan (supra). Though the case had travelled to the Hon’ble
Supreme Court with regard to and assailing the strictures being
passed against a Judicial Officer, the underlying case was one in
which regular bail, granted without consideration of the criminal
antecedents of the accused, was cancelled in exercise of the
power under Section 439(2) of the Code, upon the finding that
the Court had been misled while the bail was sought. For the
present purposes, the relevant observation of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court is as under:-
“22. Before parting, we would like to state
that, accounting for the criminal
antecedents of the accused while
considering the bail applications has
been the subject matter of concern for
Courts across the country. The rules
and orders of the Punjab and Haryana
High Court, to be specific, Rule 5 of
Chapter 1-A(b) Volume-V specifically
provide as below:
“5. Bail applications. – In every
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54892 of 2024 dt.23-07-2026
24/46application for bail presented to
the High Court the petitioner
shall state whether similar
application has or has not been
made to the Supreme Court, and
if made shall state the result
thereof. The petitioner/applicant
shall also mention whether
he/she is/was involved in any
other criminal case or not. If
yes, particulars and decisions
thereof. An application which
does not contain this
information shall be placed
before the bench with the
necessary information.”
23. We feel that every High Court in the
country should consider incorporating a
similar provision in the respective High
Court Rules and/or Criminal Side Rules
as it would impose an obligation on the
accused to make disclosures regarding
his/her involvement in any other
criminal case(s) previously registered.”
29. The materiality of criminal antecedents to
the exercise of the bail discretion is beyond the pale of
controversy. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kalyan Chandra
Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav & Anr., reported as
(2004) 7 SCC 528, had emphasised that the Court granting bail
in a serious offence must consider, among other circumstances,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54892 of 2024 dt.23-07-2026
25/46
the nature of the accusation, the severity of the punishment and
the supporting evidence. In the recent pronouncement in Rajni
v. State of Punjab (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while
setting aside the grant of bail in a case of an armed mob attack
resulting in death, has held that criminal antecedents are a
material factor bearing directly upon the likelihood of an
accused abiding by the conditions of bail, refraining from
repeating offences or desisting from intimidating the witnesses,
and that they must, therefore, weigh heavily with the Court
considering the prayer for bail. In Ajwar v. Waseem (supra), the
Hon’ble Supreme Court had laid down the relevant parameters
for granting bail and held that the Courts must consider relevant
factors like the nature of the accusations made against the
accused, the manner in which the crime is alleged to have been
committed, the gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the
accused, the criminal antecedents of the accused, the probability
of tampering of the witnesses and repeating the offence, if the
accused are released on bail, the likelihood of the accused being
unavailable in the event bail is granted, the possibility of
obstructing the proceedings and evading the courts of justice
and the overall desirability of releasing the accused on bail.
30. Recently the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54892 of 2024 dt.23-07-2026
26/46
case of Zeba Khan v. State of U.P. & Ors., reported as 2026
SCC OnLine SC 188 had emphasised the materiality and
imperativeness of complete and candid disclosure of criminal
antecedents of the accused praying for grant of bail. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court had held as under:-
“28. In Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh @
Lalla Babu, (2012) 9 SCC 446 this Court
underscored that criminal antecedents
cannot be ignored, particularly where the
nature of allegations and their societal
impact are grave. The Court clarified that
while a history-sheeter is not disentitled to
bail as a rule, antecedents constitute a
significant factor in the exercise of judicial
discretion. The relevant passage reads as
under:
“28. Coming to the nature of crime it is
perceivable that two persons came
on a motorcycle and kidnapped
Bihari Lal and kept him in
confinement for eight days. The role
of the accused is clearly stated. It is
apt to note that a history-sheeter has
a recorded past. The High Court, in
toto, has ignored the criminal
antecedents of the accused. What
has weighed with the High Court is
that the accused had spent seven
months in custody. That may be one
of the factors but that cannot be the
whole and the sole factor in every
case. It depends upon the nature of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54892 of 2024 dt.23-07-2026
27/46the offence, the manner in which it
is committed and its impact on the
society. We may hasten to add that
when we state that the accused is a
history-sheeter we may not be
understood to have said that a
history-sheeter is never entitled to
bail. But, it is a significant factor to
be taken note of regard being had to
the nature of crime in respect of
which he has been booked. In the
case at hand, as the prosecution
case unfolds, the accused did not
want anyone to speak against his
activities. He had sent two persons to
kidnap Bihari Lal, who remained in
confinement for eight days. The
victim was tortured. Kidnapping, as
an offence, is on the increase
throughout the country. Sometimes it
is dealt with formidable skill and
sometimes with terror and sometimes
with threat or brute force. The crime
relating to kidnapping has taken
many a contour. True it is, sometimes
allegations are made that a guardian
has kidnapped a child or a boy in
love has kidnapped a girl. They do
stand on a different footing. But
kidnapping for ransom or for
revenge or to spread terror or to
establish authority are in a different
realm altogether. In the present case
the victim had been kidnapped under
threat, confined and abused. The sole
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54892 of 2024 dt.23-07-2026
28/46reason for kidnapping is because the
victim had shown some courage to
speak against the accused. This may
be the purpose for sustaining of
authority in the area by the accused
and his criminal antecedents, speak
eloquently in that regard. In his plea
for bail the accused had stated that
such offences had been registered
because of political motivations but
the range of offence and their
alleged years of occurrence do not
lend prima facie acceptance to the
same. Thus, in the present case his
criminal antecedents could not have
been totally ignored.” (Emphasis
Supplied)
29. Similarly, in Neeru Yadav v. State of Uttar
Pradesh (2016) 15 SCC 422, this Court set
aside a bail order on the ground that
relevant factors, including criminal
antecedents, had been completely ignored,
holding that such a grant of bail amounted
to a deviant exercise of discretion
warranting appellate interference. The
relevant paragraphs are extracted below:
“15. This being the position of law, it is
clear as cloudless sky that the High
Court has totally ignored the
criminal antecedents of the accused.
What has weighed with the High
Court is the doctrine of parity. A
history-sheeter involved in the nature
of crimes which we have reproduced
hereinabove, are not minor offences
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54892 of 2024 dt.23-07-2026
29/46so that he is not to be retained in
custody, but the crimes are of
heinous nature and such crimes, by
no stretch of imagination, can be
regarded as jejune. Such cases do
create a thunder and lightning
having the effect potentiality of
torrential rain in an analytical mind.
The law expects the judiciary to be
alert while admitting these kind of
accused persons to be at large and,
therefore, the emphasis is on
exercise of discretion judiciously
and not in a whimsical manner.
18. Before parting with the case, we may
repeat with profit that it is not an
appeal for cancellation of bail as the
cancellation is not sought because of
supervening circumstances. The
annulment of the order passed by
the High Court is sought as many
relevant factors have not been taken
into consideration which includes
the criminal antecedents of the
accused and that makes the order a
deviant one. Therefore, the
inevitable result is the lancination of
the impugned order [Budhpal v. State
of U.P., 2014 SCC OnLine All
14815]”(Emphasis Supplied)
30. The principles reiterated by a three-Judge
Bench in Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar
(2022) 4 SCC 497 further emphasise that
while personal liberty under Article 21 of the
Constitution is invaluable, courts must
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54892 of 2024 dt.23-07-2026
30/46balance such liberty against the nature of
the accusations, supporting material,
criminal antecedents, and the broader
societal impact. Bail discretion must be
exercised judiciously and supported by
reasons grounded in the material on record.
The following observations are apposite:
“21. In Gudikanti Narasimhulu v.
Public Prosecutor, A.P. High Court,
[(1978) 1 SCC 240 : 1978 SCC (Cri)
115], Krishna Iyer, J., while
elaborating on the content and
meaning of Article 21 of the
Constitution of India, has also
elaborated the factors that have to be
considered while granting bail which
are extracted as under: (SCC p. 244,
paras 7-9)
“7. It is thus obvious that the
nature of the charge is the vital
factor and the nature of the
evidence also is pertinent. The
punishment to which the party
may be liable, if convicted or
conviction is confirmed, also
bears upon the issue.
8. Another relevant
factor is as to whether
the course of justice
would be thwarted by
him who seeks the
benignant jurisdiction
of the Court to be freed
for the time being.
[Patrick Devlin : The
Criminal Prosecution
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54892 of 2024 dt.23-07-2026
31/46in England, (London)
1960, p. 75 — Mod.
Law Rev. ibid., p. 54]
9. Thus the legal
principles and practice
validate the Court
considering the
likelihood of the
applicant interfering
with witnesses for the
prosecution or
otherwise polluting the
process of justice. It is
not only traditional but
rational, in this
context, to enquire
into the antecedents of
a man who is applying
for bail to find
whether he has a bad
record — particularly
a record which
suggests that he is
likely to commit
serious offences while
on bail. In regard to
habituals, it is part of
criminological history
that a thoughtless bail
order has enabled the
bailee to exploit the
opportunity to inflict
further crimes on the
members of society.
Bail discretion, on the
basis of evidence about
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54892 of 2024 dt.23-07-2026
32/46the criminal record of
a defendant, is
therefore not an
exercise in
irrelevance.”
35. While we are conscious of
the fact that liberty of an
individual is an invaluable
right, at the same time while
considering an application
for bail courts cannot lose
sight of the serious nature of
the accusations against an
accused and the facts that
have a bearing in the case,
particularly, when the
accusations may not be false,
frivolous or vexatious in
nature but are supported by
adequate material brought on
record so as to enable a court
to arrive at a prima facie
conclusion. While
considering an application
for grant of bail a prima facie
conclusion must be supported
by reasons and must be
arrived at after having regard
to the vital facts of the case
brought on record. Due
consideration must be given
to facts suggestive of the
nature of crime, the criminal
antecedents of the accused, if
any, and the nature of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54892 of 2024 dt.23-07-2026
33/46
punishment that would
follow a conviction vis-Ã -vis
the offence(s) alleged against
an accused.” (Emphasis
Supplied)
31. Of particular concern in the present case
is the prima facie material indicating that
Respondent No. 2 suppressed his criminal
antecedents before the High Court by stating
that he had no criminal history except the
present FIR. Such incorrect and incomplete
disclosure appears to have materially
influenced the exercise of discretion in his
favour, thereby vitiating the bail order.
xxxx
47. As repeatedly observed by this Court, bail
applications are examined at multiple stages
– from the trial Court to the High Court and
ultimately this Court – where courts are often
constrained to take a prima facie view on
incomplete or selectively presented records.
Non-disclosure of material aspects such as
criminal antecedents, prior bail rejections,
duration of custody, compliance with
constitutional and statutory safeguards,
and the progress of trial may result in the
unwarranted grant of bail, or conversely,
the prolonged incarceration of accused
persons despite substantial custody having
already been undergone.
48. Thus, this Court is of the view that every
petitioner or applicant seeking bail, at any
stage of proceedings, is under an obligation
to disclose all material particulars,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54892 of 2024 dt.23-07-2026
34/46
including criminal antecedents and the
existence of any coercive processes such as
issuance of non-bailable warrants,
declaration as a proclaimed offender, or
similar proceedings, duly supported by an
affidavit, so as to promote uniformity,
transparency and integrity in bail
adjudication.” (emphasis supplied)
31. It follows, as a necessary corollary, that
every applicant for bail is under a solemn obligation to make a
fair, complete and candid disclosure of his criminal antecedents,
and that the suppression, concealment or selective disclosure of
such material facts is an abuse of the process which strikes at
the very root of the administration of criminal justice.
32. Tested on the anvil of the aforesaid
principles, the impugned order, in the considered opinion of this
Court, cannot be sustained.
33. In the first place, the factum of suppression
stands admitted on the record. Paragraph no.4 of the counter
affidavit itself enumerates the five criminal cases in which the
opposite party no.2 stands implicated, including Sahar P.S. Case
No.111 of 2019, being a case of murder, and Sahar P.S. Case
No.184 of 2021 under the Arms Act, in which he stands
convicted, with Cr. Appeal No.54 of 2023 pending. As against
this, paragraph no.3 of the bail petition disclosed a solitary case,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54892 of 2024 dt.23-07-2026
35/46
and that too as a mere accusation, coupled with the positive
averment of fair antecedent. The suppression is, therefore, not a
matter of inference but of admission. Four criminal cases,
including a case of murder, were wholly concealed, and the
solitary case which was disclosed was presented as a pending
accusation, thereby concealing the conviction recorded therein.
34. A half-truth of this species is, in the eye of
law, more pernicious than a complete falsehood, for it wears the
garb of candour. Upon the edifice of this double concealment, a
positive representation of fair antecedent was advanced before
the Coordinate Bench of this Court, and it is by relying upon
that representation that the Coordinate Bench enlarged the
opposite party no.2 on bail.
35. In the second place, the suppression was
material, and demonstrably so. The impugned order, in
paragraph no.4 thereof, expressly records the submission that
the petitioner has clean antecedent as stated in para 3 of the bail
petition, and it thereafter proceeds to enlarge the opposite party
no.2 on bail upon a consideration of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances. The false portrayal of clean antecedents was,
therefore, not a stray averment lying dormant on the record,
rather it had entered the very consideration of the Coordinate
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54892 of 2024 dt.23-07-2026
36/46
Bench and constituted one of the foundations of the exercise of
the discretion. An order so founded proceeds upon an erroneous
premise induced by the accused himself, and is perverse within
the meaning of paragraph 22.4 of Sri Darshan (supra), and the
case squarely falls within the circumstances enumerated in
paragraphs 33.3, 33.4 and 33.5 of Deepak Yadav (supra). Had
the complete antecedents, including the pending case of murder
and the subsisting conviction under the Arms Act, been placed
before the Coordinate Bench, it cannot be predicated that the
discretion would still have been exercised in favour of the
opposite party no.2, and it is precisely this consideration of
which the Coordinate Bench came to be deprived.
36. In the third place, the misrepresentation was
not confined to the criminal antecedents. In paragraph no.7 of
the bail petition, the opposite party no.2 asserted that the injuries
are not grievous in nature. The injury reports of AIIMS, Patna,
however, are wholly to the contrary. The two penetrating
gunshot wounds sustained by Savitri Kumari, a girl of about
seventeen years, are opined therein to be grievous in nature, and
the injured Suman Yadav sustained penetrating gunshot wounds
on the right upper quadrant of the abdomen and on the flank.
The impugned order, which records the submission that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54892 of 2024 dt.23-07-2026
37/46
injuries sustained by the informant’s side are simple in nature,
stands vitiated on this count as well, having been invited upon a
misstatement of the injury reports.
37. The explanation offered in the counter
affidavit, that the non-disclosure occurred due to the mistake
and the lack of knowledge of the pairvikar, for which apologies
have been tendered, is wholly untenable and is noticed only to
be rejected. The opposite party no.2 had himself suffered the
prosecution in each of the five cases. He had faced the trial and
suffered the conviction in Sahar P.S. Case No.184 of 2021, and
he is prosecuting an appeal against that very conviction. He,
therefore, knew his own antecedents best, and he cannot be
permitted to reap the benefit of a falsehood advanced on his
behalf and, when confronted, take shelter behind the alleged
ignorance of his pairvikar. To countenance such an explanation
would be to place a premium upon the practice of suppression,
for every successful suppression would then be defended as the
handiwork, or the innocent mistake, of an uninstructed agent.
The tender of an apology, howsoever genuine and contrite,
cannot efface the advantage obtained by the fraud, for the
question is not one of repentance but of the integrity of the
judicial process.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54892 of 2024 dt.23-07-2026
38/46
38. This Court is conscious that a strict standard
governs the plea of suppression. In Soni Kumari v. State of
Bihar & Anr., Criminal Miscellaneous No.26300 of 2017,
decided on 02.01.2019, and in Dr. (Prof.) Shree Narayan Jha
v. State of Bihar & Ors., Criminal Miscellaneous No.53963 of
2015, decided on 10.12.2018, this Court declined to cancel bail
on the ground of suppression where the allegedly suppressed
case had been instituted after the bail petition was filed, or
where the concealed cases were not shown to be within the
knowledge of the accused. The present case satisfies even that
exacting standard. Every one of the five cases predates the bail
petition, and the conviction concealed was one which the
opposite party no.2 had personally suffered and is personally
appealing against. The suppressed facts, therefore, existed on
the date of the bail petition and were within the personal
knowledge of the opposite party no.2.
39. The submission founded upon the
subsequent acquittal of the opposite party no.2 in Khiri More
P.S. Case No.59 of 2015, vide the judgment dated 19.04.2025, is
equally of no avail. The duty of candour is to be judged as on
the date of the bail petition. On 20.06.2024, when the impugned
order came to be passed, the said case was pending against the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54892 of 2024 dt.23-07-2026
39/46
opposite party no.2 and was liable to be disclosed, so that it
could be weighed by the Coordinate Bench. An acquittal
recorded ten months after the grant of bail cannot relate back so
as to legitimise the concealment, nor does it touch the
concealment of the remaining cases and of the conviction under
the Arms Act, which subsists even today.
40. Equally misconceived is the reliance placed
upon Prabhakar Tewari (supra). The proposition that the
pendency of criminal cases is not, by itself, an absolute bar to
the grant of bail is unexceptionable, but it is beside the point in
the facts of the present case. The question in the present
application is not whether the antecedents of the opposite party
no.2 would necessarily have disentitled him to bail. The
question is that the Court, and the Court alone, was entitled to
weigh those antecedents, along with the gravity of the
accusation and the other relevant considerations, in deciding
whether to extend the discretionary relief of bail, and it is this
exercise of weighment of which the Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court was deprived by the suppression. The accused cannot
arrogate to himself the function of deciding which of his
antecedents are relevant and which may safely be withheld, for
that function belongs to the Court alone.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54892 of 2024 dt.23-07-2026
40/46
41. The submissions founded upon Dolat Ram
(supra) and Abdul Basit (supra), and upon the conduct of the
opposite party no.2 subsequent to his enlargement, proceed
upon a misconception of the nature of the present application.
The present is not a case of cancellation of bail on the ground of
supervening misconduct, in which event alone the absence of
misuse of the liberty would have assumed significance. The
present application invokes the power of this Court to annul an
order granting bail which was obtained by suppression and
which proceeds upon an erroneous premise, and, as held in
Puran v. Rambilas & Anr., reported as (2001) 6 SCC 338,
Neeru Yadav (supra) and Sri Darshan (supra), such power is
distinct from the power to cancel bail for misuse of liberty and
does not require any supervening circumstance to be shown. In
Jayaben v. Tejas Kanubhai Zala & Anr., reported as (2022) 3
SCC 230, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in terms that once the
order granting bail is found to be unsustainable, the cancellation
of the bail must follow as a necessary consequence, irrespective
of any misuse of the liberty, and in Centrum Financial Services
Ltd. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr., reported as 2022 SCC
OnLine SC 100, it was held that the mere circumstance that the
accused has not misused the liberty after his release cannot
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54892 of 2024 dt.23-07-2026
41/46
validate an otherwise unsustainable order granting bail. An
order obtained by suppression of material facts confers no
equity upon its beneficiary, and the circumstance that the fruits
of the fraud have not been misused is no answer to the fraud
itself.
42. The learned counsel for the opposite party
no.2 has, however, placed strong reliance upon the decision of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Himanshu Sharma v. State of
Madhya Pradesh (supra), wherein the cancellation, by a learned
Single Judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, of the bail
granted earlier by another learned Single Judge of the same
High Court was disapproved, and it was held that an order
granting bail can be set aside, on the ground of being illegal or
contrary to law, only by a Court superior to the Court which
granted the bail. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:-
“11. Law is well settled by a catena of
judgments rendered by this Court that
the considerations for grant of bail and
cancellation thereof are entirely
different. Bail granted to an accused
can only 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 bail order; (c) that the bail
was granted in ignorance of statutory
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54892 of 2024 dt.23-07-2026
42/46provisions restricting the powers of the
Court to grant bail; (d) or that the bail
was procured by misrepresentation or
fraud. In the present case, none of
these situations existed.” (emphasis
supplied)
43. Far from advancing the case of the opposite
party no.2, the decision in Himanshu Sharma (supra), in the
considered opinion of this Court, furnishes the very charter for
the exercise of the power invoked in the present application. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court has, in terms, recognised, in category
(d) of paragraph no.11 extracted hereinabove, that bail already
granted can be cancelled where it was procured by
misrepresentation or fraud, and such cancellation, by its very
nature, does not depend upon any misconduct or supervening
circumstance arising after the grant. The cancellation in that
case was disapproved upon the categorical finding that none of
the four situations existed on the facts of that case, the allegation
of misrepresentation therein being, in substance, a re-agitation
of the merits of the order granting bail. The present case stands
on an entirely different footing. The fraud practised upon this
Court is not a matter of allegation requiring adjudication. It is a
matter of admission, for paragraph no.4 of the counter affidavit
itself admits the five criminal cases, including the case of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54892 of 2024 dt.23-07-2026
43/46
murder and the subsisting conviction under the Arms Act, which
were withheld from this Court when the positive averment of
fair antecedent was advanced in paragraph no.3 of the bail
petition and acted upon in paragraph no.4 of the order dated
20.06.2024. The challenge in the present application is,
therefore, not to the soundness of the discretion exercised by the
Coordinate Bench upon the material disclosed to it, which
discretion this Court neither reviews nor sits in appeal over. The
challenge is to the deception by which the relevant material was
kept away from the Coordinate Bench altogether, and an order
procured by such deception is, as held in A.V. Papayya Sastry
(supra), a nullity which confers no enforceable right upon its
procurer.
44. The position now stands concluded by the
recent order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suraj
Mahananda v. State of West Bengal, S.L.P. (Crl.) Nos.9148-
9149 of 2026, decided on 27.05.2026, wherein it has been
observed as under:-
“6. We fail to understand why the High
Court says that a coordinate Bench
cannot cancel the bail granted to an co-
accused. If the bail has been obtained
by placing wrong facts before the High
Court, the Court can always look into
the matter and pass an appropriate
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54892 of 2024 dt.23-07-2026
44/46order.” (emphasis supplied)
45. A Coordinate Bench of this Court is,
therefore, fully competent to cancel bail which was obtained by
placing wrong facts before this Court, and the present
application, which falls squarely within category (d) recognised
in Himanshu Sharma (supra), is maintainable before this
Bench, particularly when the learned Judge who passed the
order dated 20.06.2024 has since demitted office.
46. The gravity of the accusation only fortifies
the conclusion. The allegation against the opposite party no.2 is
of coming to the door of the informant as part of an armed
assembly and of firing from a pistol with the intention to kill, as
a result whereof three persons, including a girl of seventeen
years, sustained gunshot injuries. The parties are co-villagers,
the injured and the other witnesses reside in the same village as
the opposite party no.2, and the fardbeyan itself describes him
as a man of criminal disposition who was then freshly released
from jail. In Sudha Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr., reported as
2021 SCC OnLine SC 342, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
cautioned that Courts cannot proceed with a blinkered vision,
ignoring the antecedents of the accused and the potential threat
which his release poses to the witnesses. In a case of this nature,
the complete criminal antecedents of the opposite party no.2
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54892 of 2024 dt.23-07-2026
45/46
were, therefore, not merely a relevant consideration but a vital
one.
47. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the order dated 20.06.2024 passed in Cr.
Misc. No.41671 of 2024 was obtained by the opposite party
no.2 upon a deliberate suppression of his criminal antecedents
and a misrepresentation as to the nature of the injuries. The said
suppression and misrepresentation were material and entered the
very foundation of the exercise of the discretion resulting in the
impugned order granting bail. The suppression of such material
facts disentitles the opposite party no.2 from continuing to enjoy
the privilege of bail.
48. Accordingly, the present application is
allowed. The order dated 20.06.2024 passed by the Coordinate
Bench of this Court in Cr. Misc. No.41671 of 2024, enlarging
the opposite party no.2, Madhes Kumar @ Ankit @ Madhes
Yadav, on bail in connection with Khiri More P.S. Case No.06
of 2024, is hereby cancelled. The bail bonds furnished by the
opposite party no.2 also stand cancelled. The opposite party
no.2 shall surrender before the learned Court below within a
period of three weeks from today, failing which the Senior
Superintendent of Police, Patna, shall take all appropriate steps,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54892 of 2024 dt.23-07-2026
46/46
in accordance with law, for securing his custody.
49. The learned Trial Court is directed to
proceed with the trial and conclude the same as expeditiously as
possible, without being influenced by any observation made
herein.
50. It is made abundantly clear that the
observations made hereinabove are confined to the
consideration of the present application and shall not be
construed as an expression of any opinion on the merits of the
case, which shall be decided by the learned Trial Court
uninfluenced by the same.
51. Let a copy of this order be communicated to
the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Patna, through
FAX/e-mail, for its compliance.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
Shishir/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 29.07.2026 Transmission Date 29.07.2026
