Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
J. C. Doshi, J.
Baneshwar Laxman Jana – Petitioner
Versus
Ramapada Murlimohan Manna – Respondent
R/Criminal Misc. Application (For Cancellation Of Bail) No. 4027 Of 2022 In R/Criminal Misc. Application No. 1577 of 2022
Decided On : 31-01-2024
Suppression of Material Fact - Criminal Procedure - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 439(2) - 70 - The court discussed the suppression of material facts by the respondent accused in obtaining anticipatory bail. It referred to various judgments to establish that suppression of material fact vitiates the relief obtained and can be a ground for canceling bail. However, the court found that the respondent accused did not suppress the fact of the warrant issued against him and had cooperated in the investigation. The court emphasized the distinction between rejection of bail at the initial stage and cancellation of bail after it has been granted, and concluded that no case was made out for suppressing material facts to obtain discretionary relief.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash the order granting anticipatory bail to the respondent accused, alleging that the bail was obtained by suppressing material facts, specifically the issuance of a warrant under section 70 of Cr.P.C.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent accused did not suppress the fact of the warrant issued against him and had cooperated in the investigation. It emphasized the distinction between rejection of bail at the initial stage and cancellation of bail after it has been granted.
Issues: The main issue was whether the respondent accused suppressed material facts to obtain anticipatory bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that suppression of material fact vitiates the relief obtained and can be a ground for canceling bail. It also highlighted the distinction between rejection of bail at the initial stage and cancellation of bail after it has been granted.
Final Decision: The petition to quash the order granting anticipatory bail was dismissed by the court.
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The court emphasized that suppression of material facts during the process of obtaining bail can vitiate the relief granted and may serve as grounds for cancellation of bail (!) (!) .
The respondent accused did not suppress the fact of the warrant issued against him and cooperated during investigation, which influenced the court’s decision not to cancel the bail on the grounds of suppression (!) (!) .
The distinction between rejection of bail at the initial stage and cancellation of bail after it has been granted is crucial. The court highlighted that cancellation of bail involves different considerations and cannot be based solely on the suppression of facts unless it amounts to misrepresentation or fraud (!) (!) .
The court found that the respondent did not suppress any material facts relevant to the issuance of the warrant or the investigation process, and thus, no grounds for cancellation of bail based on suppression were established (!) (!) .
It was noted that the respondent extended cooperation in the investigation, and there was no evidence of misconduct or misuse of liberty after bail was granted (!) (!) .
The court also considered procedural aspects, including the timing of the issuance of warrants, charge-sheet filing, and the circumstances during the COVID-19 pandemic, which may have affected the respondent’s knowledge of certain proceedings (!) (!) .
The court concluded that no case was made out for the cancellation of bail on the grounds of suppression or misrepresentation, and the petition to quash the bail order was dismissed (!) (!) .
Overall, the decision underscores that cancellation of bail requires clear and compelling evidence of suppression or misconduct after bail has been granted, and mere omission or nondisclosure at the initial stage, especially when the accused cooperates, does not necessarily justify cancellation (!) (!) .
Let me know if you need a more detailed analysis or specific legal advice based on this document.
JUDGMENT :
1. By way of the present petition under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 04.02.2022 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Application No.1577 of 2022, whereby this Court has granted anticipatory bail to the respondent – original accused.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr.Dipen Desai for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and learned advocate Mr.Fouzan Soniwala for respondent no.1.
3. Learned advocate Mr.Dipen Desai for the petitioner submits that respondent accused has obtained order of bail passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.1577 of 2022 by playing fraud upon the Court. Referring to para 7 of the order passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.1577 of 2022, he would submit that the respondent accused has suppressed material fact. Charge-sheet was filed against him and in the charge-sheet he was shown was absconding accused. He would further submit that it is suppressed before the Court that warrant under section 70 of Cr.P.C. was issued against the respondent accused. It is submitted that suppression of material fact vitiates all reliefs. This fact which was within the knowledge of the respondent accused could be revealed at the time of seeking discretionary relief from this Court.
3.1. Learned advocate Mr.Desai would submit that order of bail was passed on 04.02.2022, but charge-sheet was filed on 18.01.2022 showing name of the petitioner in column no.2. This fact was not revealed while hearing bail application. Thus, it indicates that bail order was obtained by playing fraud and suppressing material fact. It is submitted that learned Special Designated Judge (GPID) issued warrant under section 70 of Cr.P.C. on 15.01.2022 against the respondent accused. It is submitted that even before hearing of bail application took place, warrant under section 70 was issued. This fact was not disclosed to the Co-ordinate Bench instead of that it was submitted that respondent accused is ready to co-operate in investigation. Therefore, there is clear suppression before this Court. It is submitted that suppression of material fact can be one of the ground and reason to cancel bail. He referred and relied upon judgment of Orissa High Court in the case of Sanjida Bibi v/s. State of Orissa [CRLMA No.104 of 2018], more particularly following unnumbered paras :-
Law is well settled as held in the case of Moti Lal Songara - Vrs.- Prem Prakash @ Pappu and another reported in (2013) 55 Orissa Criminal Reports (SC) 881 that anyone who takes recourse to method of suppression in a Court of law, is, in actuality, playing fraud with the Court, and the maxim suppresio veri, expression falsi i.e. suppression of the truth is equivalent to the expression of falsehood, gets attracted. It has been further held that as the order has been obtained by practicing fraud and suppressing material fact before a Court of law to gain advantage, the said order cannot be allowed to stand. In case of K.D. Sharma -Vrs.-. Steel Authority of India Limited and Ors. reported in (2008) 12 Supreme Court Cases 481, it is held that the party who invokes
Suppression of material fact vitiates the relief obtained and can be a ground for canceling bail. The distinction between rejection of bail at the initial stage and cancellation of bail after it has ....
The court emphasized the limitations on the court's power to cancel bail and the need for strong and substantive reasons to arrest a person who is set at liberty by admitting him to bail.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to cancel bail based on fraudulent misrepresentation and the importance of supervening circumstances in such decisions.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that consistent violation of court directions and non-compliance with previous court orders can warrant the cancellation of bail. Additionally, the....
The main legal point established is that the discretion to grant bail should be exercised judiciously, considering the seriousness of the offence and the need for proper reasoning in bail orders.
Bail should not be granted arbitrarily; courts must apply established legal principles and consider the seriousness of the charges and the circumstances surrounding the accused.
Cancellation of bail – Favourable order obtained by suppressing facts cannot be allowed to stand.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
