Rajiv Roy, J. – The question that has been raised in the present petition is as to whether the anticipatory bail granted to the opposite parties herein need to be cancelled in view of the averment by the petitioner that the process under Section 83 of the Cr.P.C. was executed by the Police on 26.02.2024 which was suppressed by the opposite parties herein when they approached the High Court for the grant of anticipatory bail.

2. Chiraiya P.S. Case no. 218 of 2022 was instituted under Sections 341, 323, 307, 354, 379, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code on 09.05.2022 by the informant, Yamuna Tiwari @ Braj Bihari Tiwari.

3. The allegation in the FIR is that on 07.05.2022, as the informant’s son Surendra Tiwari objected Dhrup Narayan Tiwari who had started construction on a government land, his son, Sonu Tiwari gave ‘khanti’ blow on his head, was badly injured and collapsed on the ground. When the informant’s younger son and daughter-in-law came to his rescue, the allegation against Dhrup Narayan Tiwari is of giving ‘iron rod’ blow to the informant’s younger son, Upendra Tiwari. The allegation against the opposite party no. 2 to 4 as also six others is/are of assaulting the informant’s daughter-in-law and snatching her gold chain. Accordingly, the FIR.

4. Subsequently, the opposite nos. 2 to 4 preferred Cr. Misc. No. 40812 of 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail after rejection of their anticipatory bail application by the learned Sessions Judge, Motihari on 11.11.2022.

5. The contention in the anticipatory bail application was/were that: –

(i) they do not have criminal antecedent;

(ii) specific allegation of assault is/are against Sonu Tiwari, Dhrup Narain Tiwari and Vishal Kumar;

(iii) omnibus allegation is there against the petitioners (Opposite parties herein);

(iv) counter case vide Chiraiya P.S. Case No. 225 of 2022 has been lodged by the family and others.

6. The matter was taken up by this Court on 28.07.2023 and after hearing the learned Counsels for the petitioners, Mr. Abhishek Kumar and the State and considering that there is/are omnibus allegation against the O.P.s herein, anticipatory bail application was allowed.

7. Two months later, the informant preferred the present petition for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to opposite party nos. 2 to 4 on the ground that: –

(i) the anticipatory bail application of accused Sonu Tiwari was rejected by a bench of the Court on 16.01.2023;

(ii) opposite parties are prime accused who caused injuries to the informant side;

(iii) after the FIR was lodged and as Police failed to arrest them, processes under Section 83 of the Cr.P.C. was issued and executed on 26.02.2023;

(iv) as this fact was suppressed with the court and accordingly, anticipatory bail procured, the same needs to be cancelled.

8. Ms. Tanushree and Mr. Prabhakar Nath Rai appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the accused persons brutally assaulted the informant’s side causing serious injuries to his son, Surendra Tiwari. Further, Section 83 of the Cr.P.C. process was executed against the opposite parties and as this fact was suppressed from the court, on this ground alone, the anticipatory bail granted to the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 be cancelled.

9. Learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment and order of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana vs. Dharamraj [(SLP (Cr.l.) No. 2256 of 2022] [2023 (6) BLJ 32 (SC)] wherein the Court cancelled the anticipatory bail granted to the respondents after taking note of another order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Abhishek vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2022) 8 SCC 282 [: 2023 (5) BLJ 289 (SC)] wherein it was concluded: –

“68. As regards the implication of proclamation having been issued against the appellant, we have no hesitation in making it clear that any person, who is declared as an "absconder" and remains out of reach of the investigating agency and thereby stands directly at conflict with law, ordinarily, deserves no concessi