Patna High Court
Bimal Kumar @ Bimal Kumar GuptaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- PARTLY ALLOWED (DISPOSAL)
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
Anticipatory bail obtained by fraud through suppression of criminal antecedents is cancellable; bail was cancelled for parties 4 and 5 but not for party 2.
Summary
The petitioner, Bimal Kumar, filed a criminal miscellaneous application seeking cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted by the Principal Sessions Judge, Purnea, to opposite parties Manish Kumar Singh (No.2), Basant Rai (No.4) and Rupesh Kumar (No.5). The ground alleged was that parties 4 and 5 had concealed their prior criminal cases involving offences under the IPC, SC/ST Act and Arms Act, thereby obtaining bail by false statements. The State opposed the cancellation, while counsel for the opposite parties admitted the antecedents of parties 4 and 5 but denied any concealment by party 2. The High Court held that anticipatory bail obtained through fraud is liable to be cancelled and ordered cancellation of bail for parties 4 and 5, directing them to surrender and apply for regular bail, but rejected the prayer for party 2 as no concealment was found. Consequently, the application was partly allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be cancelled on the ground of suppression of criminal antecedents and false statements
- Whether the bail granted to opposite party No.2 should be cancelled in view of alleged concealment
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 327, 341, 342, 379, 427, 436, 447, 504, 506
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention) Act — s. 3(1)(i)(r)(s)(g), 3(i)(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- bail cancellation
- fraud on court
- suppression of criminal antecedent
- regular bail
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4239 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-43 Year-2024 Thana- DHAMDAHA District- Purnia
======================================================
Bimal Kumar @ Bimal Kumar Gupta Son of Kamal Kishore Gupta Resident
of Village - Chandra Rahi, Ward No. 15, P.S. - Dhamdaha, District - Purnea
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Bihar
2. Manish Kumar Singh Son of Late Mithlesh Prasad Singh Resident of Village
- Nagar Panchayat Dhamdaha, Ward No. 11, P.S. - Dhamdaha, District -
Purnea
3. Barun Kumar Son of Rabindra Nath Sen Resident of Village - Nagar
Panchayat Dhamdaha, Ward No. 11, P.S. - Dhamdaha, District - Purnea
4. Basant Rai Son of Late Yogendra Rai Resident of Village - Nagar Panchayat
Dhamdaha, Ward No. 11, P.S. - Dhamdaha, District - Purnea
5. Rupesh Kumar Son of Arun Kumar Resident of Village - Nagar Panchayat
Dhamdaha, Ward No. 7, P.S. - Dhamdaha, District - Purnea
6. Mohan Mandal @ Mohan Kumar Mandal Son of Madan Mandal Resident of
Village - Chandra Rahi, Ward No. 15, P.S. - Dhamdaha, District - Purnea
7. Mosiin Ansari Son of Late Ainul Ansari Resident of Village - Chandra Rahi,
Ward No. 15, P.S. - Dhamdaha, District - Purnea
8. Mala Devi Wife of Suresh Mandal Resident of Village - Dhamdaha North,
Ward No. 15, P.S. - Dhamdaha, District - Purnea
9. Suresh Mandal Son of Late Prayag Mandal Resident of Village - Dhamdaha
North, Ward No. 15, P.S. - Dhamdaha, District - Purnea
10. Shankar Mandal Son of Late Kaushki Mandal Resident of Village -
Dhamdaha North, Ward No. 15, P.S. - Dhamdaha, District - Purnea
11. Jagdish Mandal Son of Late Kaushki Mandal Resident of Village -
Dhamdaha North, Ward No. 15, P.S. - Dhamdaha, District - Purnea
12. Mahadeo Mandal Son of Late Kaushki Mandal Resident of Village -
Dhamdaha North, Ward No. 15, P.S. - Dhamdaha, District - Purnea
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Siyaram Shahi, Advocate
For the State : Mr.Nirmal Kumar Sinha, APP
For the OP Nos. 2,4 and 5: Mr. Ramesh Kumar Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
5 05-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned APP
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4239 of 2025(5) dt.05-05-2026
2/4
for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2, 4
and 5.
2. The present Cr. Misc. application is being filed for
cancellation of anticipatory bail granted by the Principal
Sessions Judge, Purnea by a common order dated 04.10.2024.
3. The present cancellation for anticipatory bail
granted to the opposite party nos. 2, 4 and 5 has been filed on
the ground that the aforesaid opposite parties have suppressed
their criminal antecedents and have obtained anticipatory bail
from the Court below.
4. With regard to the same, the following statement
has been made in paragraph-13 of the bail cancellation petition
which reads as follows:
“13. That on the false statement the opposite
party no.2, 4 and 5 have obtain the order of
Anticipatory Bail from the Sessions Court. Their
antecedent are as follows:
i. Dhamdaha P.S. Case
No.340/2018 dated 26.11.2018 under
sections 447, 341, 323, 327, 504, 506/34
I.P.C. and 3(i) (2) of SC/ST Act as the instant
of one Ramchandra Marandi against Manish
Kumar Singh, Rupesh Kumar and five others
with regard to the grabbing of land.
ii. Dhamdaha P.S. Case
No.63/2018 dated 10.03.2021 under sections
323, 341, 342, 427, 379, 504/34 I.P.C
against Manish Kumar Singh and Basant
Kumar Ray by the informant Ranjan Kumar
and two others with regard to grabbing of
land.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4239 of 2025(5) dt.05-05-2026
3/4
iii. Dhamdaha P.S. Case
No.258/2019 dated 05.01.2019 under
sections 447, 427, 504, 506, 436 I.P.C. and
3(i) (2) SC/ST Act and 27 Arms Act against
Manish Kumar Singh and for others with
regard to the grabbing of land.
iv. Sadar ST/SC P.S. Case
No.7/2017 dated 08.02.2017 under sections
447, 341, 323, 504, 506/34 I.P.C. and u/s
3(1)(i) (r) (s)(g) SC/ST Act through the
informant Sawan Marandi against Manish
Kumar Singh and four others with regard to
the grabbing of land.”
5. From the impugned order, it appears that it was
argued by learned counsels for the opposite parties in the Court
below before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Purnea
that all the opposite parties have clean antecedent.
6. Mr. Ramesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the
opposite party nos. 2, 4 and 5 has filed the counter affidavit and
he has accepted the fact that the opposite party nos. 4 and 5 have
criminal antecedent and a false statement was made before the
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Purnea at the time of
argument of anticipatory bail.
7. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the
bail granted to the opposite party nos. 4 and 5 has been obtained
by committing fraud upon the Court i.e., by suppression of
criminal antecedent and therefore anticipatory bail granted to
them is cancelled. They are directed to surrender and pray for
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4239 of 2025(5) dt.05-05-2026
4/4
regular bail within two weeks from today.
8. So far as opposite party no. 2 is concerned,
considering the fact that there is no concealment with regard to
the criminal antecedent, I do not find anything against the
opposite party no. 2 and the prayer for cancellation of bail of
opposite party no. 2 is hereby rejected.
9. This application is partly allowed.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
P. Kumar
U T
Checking your session…