Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

UMASHANKAR SINGHversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
ALLOWED

Holding

Bail granted to Vishwas Mali is cancelled as it was obtained by fraud and suppression of material facts.

Summary

The petitioner, Umashankar Singh, filed an application seeking cancellation of bail granted to Vishwas Mali (Opposite Party No.2) on 06-12-2023. The petitioner alleged that Mali obtained bail by misrepresenting that no incriminating property had been recovered, whereas the case diary showed Rs.95,500 was seized from his house. Despite notices and a jointness petition, Mali failed to appear before the court. The court examined the records, noted the suppression of material facts and the non‑appearance, and relied on Supreme Court precedents that fraud vitiates bail. Consequently, the court cancelled Mali’s bail, ordering him to surrender within three weeks, while allowing a fresh bail application if circumstances change. The application was allowed.

Issues considered

  • Whether bail can be cancelled on the ground of fraud or suppression of material facts.
  • Whether the accused's failure to appear despite service of notice justifies cancellation of bail.
  • Whether the facts of a Section 394 IPC case warrant revocation of previously granted bail.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • bail cancellation
  • fraud
  • misrepresentation
  • Section 394 IPC
  • non‑appearance
  • criminal procedure
  • property recovery
  • threats

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20926 of 2024
                      Arising Out of PS. Case No.-10 Year-2023 Thana- BRAHMPUR District- Buxar
                 ======================================================
                 Umashankar Singh Son Of Subedar Singh @ Subadar Kuar R/O-Mahuar,
                 P.S.-Nainijor, Distt.-Buxar

                                                                                 ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                      Versus
           1.    The State of Bihar
           2.    Vishwas Mali Son Of Lalbabu Mali R/O-Chhathiya Pokhra, P.S.-Dumraon,
                 Distt.-Buxar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr. Ravi Shankar Pathak, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr. Md. Shakir Ahmad, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
                                       ORAL ORDER

7   30-01-2026                  Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   APP for the State.

                                2. The present application has been filed for

                   cancellation of bail granted to the opposite party no.2 by an

                   order dated 06.12.2023 passed by this Court in Cr. Misc.

                   No.77670 of 2023.

                                3. Notices had been issued to the opposite party no.2

                   in the year 2024 itself and despite the fact that said notice was

                   received by his brother as reported by the process server and a

                   jointness petition was also filed in this Court, the opposite party

                   no.2 has chosen not to appear in the proceedings although the

                   case has been taken up on number of dates even after issuance
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20926 of 2024(7) dt.30-01-2026
                                            2/4




          of notice.

                       4. The present case is one under Section 394 of I.P.C.

          and the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

          opposite party no.2 had procured bail upon misrepresentation

          and fraud as he had suppressed the factum of recovery from his

          possession as the order granting bail would indicate that nothing

          incriminating had been recovered from his possession but as

          matter of fact, paragraph 51 of the case diary which had been

          called for by this Court for proper adjudication of this case,

          reveals that a total amount of Rs.95,500/- kept in a bag was

          recovered from the house of the opposite party no.2 upon raid

          being conducted in the presence of independent witnesses and a

          seizure list was also duly prepared. Learned counsel has also

          submitted that the bail application of other accused person,

          namely Bharat Kumar Yadav from whose house some recovery

          of Rs.49,500/- was made, was denied the privilege of bail by the

          same Bench of this Court by an order dated 02.08.2023 passed

          in Cr. Misc. No.15837 of 2023. This clearly demonstrates as to

          what had weighed with the Hon'ble Court while granting bail to

          the opposite party no.2 was primarily the fact that there was no

          recovery from his possession which facts stands negated by the

          materials collected during the course of investigation. Over and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20926 of 2024(7) dt.30-01-2026
                                            3/4




          above such ground of suppression, the learned counsel has also

          urged that after release, the opposite party no.2 has also been

          threatening the petitioner.

                       5. Taking into consideration the submissions of the

          learned counsel for the petitioner and after having gone through

          the entire records of this case including the case dairy, this Court

          is of the view that opposite party no.2 has procured bail from a

          Bench of this Court upon suppression of material facts and the

          law is very well established that fraud vitiates everything and so

          far as the cancellation of bail is concerned, any order procured

          upon misrepresentation or fraud which would include

          suppression of material fact, would come within the ambit of

          one of the grounds for seeking cancellation of bail as has been

          held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Himanshu

          Sharma vs. State of M.P., reported in (2024) 4 SCC 222 as

          also in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Sri Darshan,

          reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1923. It is also a fact that the

          opposite party no.2 has not been appearing in the present

          proceedings also despite valid service of notice upon him.

                       6. In such view of the matter, bail granted to the

          opposite party no.2 is hereby cancelled. The O.P. No.2 (accused)

          shall surrender before the concerned Court within a period of
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20926 of 2024(7) dt.30-01-2026
                                                        4/4




                      three weeks from today, failing which the concerned Court shall

                      be at liberty to cancel his bail bonds and take all necessary steps

                      to secure his custody. It is, however, clarified that in the event of

                      any change in circumstances, liberty is granted to the O.P. No.2

                      to renew his prayer for bail before appropriate forum in

                      accordance with law.

                                   7. Accordingly, this application is allowed.


                                                    (Soni Shrivastava, J)

anand/-
U       T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.