An order granted based on fraudulent documents is null and void, allowing for its cancellation under Section 439(2) CrPC.

Judgment :

Pranjal Das, J.

1. Heard Sri Manish Kumar Agarwal, the petitioner in person. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. K.M. Hasan, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.

2. Invoking the provisions of Section 439 (2) Cr.P.C (as it existed then), the petitioner is seeking cancellation of order dated 14-10-2019 passed by this Court in AB/3239/2019, whereby the respondent No.2, Manoj Kumar Bora, was granted anticipatory bail in connection with Dibrugarh P.S. Case No. 442/2018(GR No. 1002/2018) – which was registered based on a complaint on behalf of the petitioner. For the purpose of the present adjudication, it is not really necessary to go into the details of the said case. However, by way of background facts, it may be mentioned that the complaint before police was lodged with the allegations that one Tagung Neri had entered into an agreement with the mother of the petitioner for hiring excavators on a monthly rent, but not only the rent was not paid, but the excavators were misappropriated and sold off. The respondent No. 2 was also stated to be one of the accused involved in the alleged offenses of misappropriating the excavators.

3. During the investigation of the aforesaid Dibrugarh P.S. Case 442/2018, the respondent No. 2 received notice whereupon he preferred an anticipatory bail before this Court – being AB No. 2070/2019, which was rejected by the order dated 19-08-2019 with the observations that, as per the materials, he was found to have received one excavator. Subsequently, the respondent No. 2 preferred another anticipatory bail application before this Court – being AB No. 3239 of 2019.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that one of the contentions in the subsequent petition was that he was a bona fide purchaser of one of the excavators prior to the lodging of the FIR and that said aspect had mistakenly not been placed before the Court during the adjudication of the first appeal application. The petitioner has annexed a copy of the bail order filed in AB No. 3239/2019 and drawn attention to a para, which may be reproduced herein below –

“It appears from the materials in the case diary that the petitioner purchased the excavator, involved in this case, from one Karken Ngomdir at Rs.35 Lakhs. The excavator has already been recovered during investigation. The petitioner, at best be said to have received the stolen property, attracting, prima facie, Section 411 of the IPC.”

5. The petitioner has contended that, as part of the bail application, the respondent No. 2 has annexed a copy of a purported agreement dated 19-08- 2017 entered into between him and one Karken Ngomdir of Pasighat, Arunachal Pradesh, whereby he had purchased one excavator L&T Komats EX-200 hydraulic excavator for Rs.35,00,000/-. The petitioner has contended that the said agreement was a fake agreement as an agreement to sell the said excavator was between his mother and the said person.

6. On this aspect, the petitioner lodged a complaint before the Latasil police station alleging that with the help of this fraudulent document, the respondent No. 2 had misled this Court and secured a bail order. The complaint was registered into Latasil PS case No. 78 of 2021 under section 120B/420/406/193 IPC. After completion of investigation, the I/O in the Latasil PS case No. 78 of 2021 submitted charge-sheet vide C.S. No. 130 of 2023 dated 21-11-2023 in which the respondent No. 2 was the sole accused sent up for trial.

7. The petitioner in person submits that the purported agreement shown by the respondent No.2 in his bail petition is a fraudulent docum