Back
1986 Supreme(Pat) 215
PATNA HIGH COURT
S.N.Jha, J.
Vishwanath Tiwary
Versus
State Of Bihar
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2852 of 1986 ; 3737 of 1986 ;
Decided On : JULY 18, 1986
Bail once granted should not be cancelled unless there are very cogent and overwhelming circumstances.
Headnote:
ANTICIPATORY BAIL - CANCELLATION - S.439(2) CR.P.C. - COURT HELD THAT BAIL ONCE GRANTED SHOULD NOT BE CANCELLED UNLESS THERE ARE VERY COGENT AND OVERWHELMING CIRCUMSTANCES.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed an application under S.439(2) of Cr.P.C. to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the opposite parties in a case of attempt to murder. The petitioner alleged that the opposite parties had obtained bail on wrong statements of facts and by concealing certain materials from the Court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there were no cogent and overwhelming circumstances to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the opposite parties. The court also found that the opposite parties had not abused their liberty or misused their privilege, nor were they interfering in the course of justice.
Issues: Whether the anticipatory bail granted to the opposite parties should be cancelled.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that bail once granted should not be cancelled unless there are very cogent and overwhelming circumstances. The court also held that the opposite parties had not abused their liberty or misused their privilege, nor were they interfering in the course of justice.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the opposite parties.
1. These two applications were heard together as they arise out of the same matter and they are being disposed of by this common judgment with the consent of the parties.
2. The facts relevant for the disposal of these two applications, in short, are that opp. party 2, 3 and 4 of Cr.Misc.No.2852/1986 were granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dt.11-3-1986 in Cr.Misc. No.2026/1986. The said order reads as follows :-
Heard both the parties. In view of the supervision note of the higher police officer, I accept the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners. Let the three petitioners namely Surendra Pandey, Hari Govind Pandey and Madho Pandey be released in the event of their arrest, in Siwan Muffasil P.S.Case No.21 of 1985, on a bail of Rs.4,000.00 (Rupees four thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siwan, subject to the conditions Under S.438(2) Cr.P.C."
3 An application under S.439(2) of Cri. P.C. being Cr.Misc.No.2852/1986 was filed by the petitioner of the aforesaid miscellaneous case to cancel the order granting anticipatory bail dt.11-3-1986 in Cr. Misc.No.2026/1986 which is the subject matter of the aforesaid applications.
4. This Court vide order dt.9-4-1986 also issued notice to one Maheshwari Pandey to show cause as to why he should not be prosecuted for making false affidavit on oath in the bail petition (Cr.Misc.No.2026/1986) and annexing therewith false documents against the said Maheshwari Pandey a separate case was registered bearing Cr.Misc. No.3737/1986. It appears that Maheshwari Pandey in pursuance to the said notice has filed show cause which is on the records of the aforesaid Cr.Misc.No.3737/1986.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner appearing in Cr.Misc.No.2852 has submitted that opp.party 2 to 4 have obtained the bail on wrong statement of facts and by concealing certain materials from the Court, and, therefore, the order dt.11-3-1986 whereby these opposite party Nos.2 to 4 were released on anticipatory bail, be cancelled. In support of his contention, the learned counsel drew my attention to certain paras of the application (Cr.Misc.No.2026/1986). According to the learned counsel, the statements made in paras 8, 9 and 10 of the said application were not correct. In para 8. a statement has been made that the petitioner Surendra Pandey (opp. party No.2) was a teacher in a middle school in the petitioners village which was started by the villagers. In para 9, it was stated that none of the injuries on the person of the said informant are such that might even remotely attract the provision of S.307 of the Penal Code. It was further stated that the doctor gave his opinion that the injuries were simple and as regards injury No.6, it was bruise in the chest, the doctor reserved his opinion. It was also stated in para 10 that the injury report falsifies the allegations made by the informant. It was vehemently argued that all these statements made in the application which was sworn in by said Maheshwari Pandey were false. Therefore, on such statements the anticipatory bail which has been granted to opp.party 2 to 4 should be cancelled.
6. In Cr.Misc.No.2852/1986 filed by the petitioner Vishwanath Tiwary, it has been stated in para 9 that the petitioners of Cr. Misc.No.2026/1986 have made several wrong and false statements in their anticipatory bail application and have concealed several facts namely that in para 4, 9 and 10 of the application it has been wrongly stated that all the injuries were simple and no further opinion of the doctor with regard to injury No.6 has been produced before this Court. According to the learned counsel, the injury report shows that all the injuries were on vital parts of the body and injury No.6 was grievous and two ribs have been fractured which clearly makes the case under S.307 of the Penal Code. In para 10, it has been stated that similar in para No.6 of their bail application, the opp
