##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.61921 of 2021

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-16 Year-2021 Thana- SC/ST District- Supaul

======================================================

PAWAN RAM Son of Guneshwar Ram Resident of Village - Pipra Khurd,

P.S. - Supaul, District - Supaul, State - Bihar.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Jata Shankar Lal Das @ Dholoo Son of Late Hari Shankar Lal Das Resident

of Village - Supaul Nagar Parishad Ward No. - 24, P.S. - Supaul, District -

Supaul, State - Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party/s

======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jitendra Kumar, Advocate

Mr.Kuldeep Kumar, Advocate

For the Opposite Party/s : Mrs.Usha Kumari 1, APP

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA

ORAL ORDER

5 30-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

APP of the State.

2. The petitioner has filed the present application

seeking cancellation of regular bail granted to opposite party no.

2 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Supaul vide order dated

15.06.2021 passed in SC/ST Case No.43 of 2021 (arising out of

Supaul SC/ST P.S. Case No.16 of 2021) for the offence under

Sections 420, 341, 323, 406, 504, 506 and 34 of IPC and

Section 3(i)(r)(s) of the SC/ST Act.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for

cancellation of bail granted to the opposite party no.2 on the

ground that he has suppressed his criminal antecedent as it

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61921 of 2021(5) dt.30-01-2026

2/5

would be evident from the order granting bail that it has been

mentioned that opposite party no.2 has clean antecedent.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has made a reference of a few

judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court which are Himanshu

Sharma Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [(2024) 4 SCC 222] and

Ash Mohammad Vs. Shiv Raj Singh & Ors. [(2012) 9 SCC 446]

and has relied on the said judgments to contend that suppression

of criminal antecedent would be one of the grounds for

cancellation of bail.

4. After going through the records of this case, this

Court finds that so far as merits of the case is concerned, the

case relates to miner scuffle between the parties and taking

away of Rs. 10,000/- from the informant leading to some

allegations of abuse and assault by fist and slaps. In such

background of the case, regular bail was granted to the opposite

party no.2 vide order dated 15.06.2021 wherein it was recorded

that he has no criminal antecedent but it is also evident that

criminal antecedent was not one of the relevant consideration

for grant of such bail. It would also appear from the present

application that opposite party no.2 has only one criminal

antecedent which is not of similar nature as the present case and

is also not under serious provisions. In such view of the matter,

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61921 of 2021(5) dt.30-01-2026

3/5

it cannot be said that there is a deliberate attempt on the part of

the petitioner to suppress his antecedent.

5. So far as the judgments relied upon by the

petitioner is concerned, it would be evident from the case of

Himanshu Sharma Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [(2024) 4

SCC 222] that one of the conditions of cancellation has been

stated as bail being procured by mis-representation or fraud. It

does not appear that non-disclosure of one criminal antecedent

would amount to procuring the order on the basis of mis-

representation or fraud. Even in case of Ash Mohammad Vs.

Shiv Raj Singh & Ors. [(2012) 9 SCC 446], paragraph 33 of the

same would indicate that antecedent of the accused would also

be a factor for consideration depending upon nature of crime

and considering that in the said case there was a confinement for

eight days, as such, antecedent was taken as a relevant

consideration.

6. After having taken into consideration the aforesaid

facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made on

behalf of petitioner and the judicial pronouncements relied up