Patna High Court
PAWAN RAMversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
Non‑disclosure of a single, unrelated prior conviction does not amount to fraud or mis‑representation, and therefore cannot be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Summary
Petitioner Pawan Ram sought cancellation of the regular bail granted to Jata Shankar Lal Das (opposite party No.2) in a case involving theft of Rs.10,000 and assault, alleging that the bail order misrepresented the accused’s criminal antecedent. The High Court examined the facts, noting that the incident was a minor scuffle and that the accused had only one prior conviction unrelated to the present charges, which was not a material factor in granting bail. The Court held that non‑disclosure of a single antecedent does not amount to fraud or mis‑representation sufficient to cancel bail, citing Supreme Court decisions in Himanshu Sharma (2024), Ash Mohammad (2012), and Abhimanyu v. State of Kerala (2025). It further observed that antecedents alone cannot be a ground for denial or cancellation of bail, referencing Ayub Khan v. State of Rajasthan. Consequently, the application for bail cancellation was rejected, and the petition was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the non‑disclosure of a prior criminal antecedent by the accused constitutes fraud or mis‑representation sufficient to cancel the bail granted.
- Whether the presence of a single prior conviction, unrelated to the current offences, is a ground for cancellation of bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 34, 341, 406, 420, 504, 506
Subjects
- bail
- cancellation of bail
- criminal antecedent
- mis‑representation
- SC/ST Act
- IPC offences
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
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 upon
him, this Court would gainfully refer to another judgment
rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Abhimanue
Etc. Etc. Vs. State of Kerala [2025 INSC 1136] and would
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61921 of 2021(5) dt.30-01-2026
4/5
quote paragraph no.23 thereof to point out the fact that
antecedents by themselves cannot constitute a ground for denial
of bail.
“23. Our attention was also invited to
the status report filed by the State, to
indicate the various criminal antecedents
of the appellants. Suffice it to say, however,
that such antecedents by themselves cannot
constitute a ground for denial of bail. In
this context, a useful reference may be
made to the decision of a coordinate Bench
of this Court in Ayub Khan v. State of
Rajasthan of which one of us (Augustine
George Masih, J.) was a member. The
relevant paragraph therefrom is extracted
below:
10. The presence of the antecedents of the
accused is only one of the several
considerations for deciding the prayer for
bail made by him. In a given case, if the
accused makes out a strong prima facie
case, depending upon the fact situation and
period of incarceration, the presence of
antecedents may not be a ground to deny
bail. There may be a case where a Court
can grant bail only on the grounds of long
incarceration. The presence of antecedents
may not be relevant in such a case. In a
given case, the Court may grant default
bail. Again, the antecedents of the accused
are irrelevant in such a case. Thus,
depending upon the peculiar facts, the
Court can grant bail notwithstanding the
existence of the antecedents. ………”
7. So far as the present case is concerned, the same
pertains to cancellation of bail. Considering that the parameters
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61921 of 2021(5) dt.30-01-2026
5/5
for cancellation of bail stand on a completely different footing
from those for grant of bail, this Court is of the view that the
order granting bail to opposite party no. 2 warrants no
interference. Accordingly, the present application is rejected.
8. However, in case the petitioner, at any point of
time, seeks cancellation of bail on the basis of supervening
circumstances such as threatening, etc., he would always have
the liberty to move an appropriate application before the same
Court which had granted bail to opposite party no. 2.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
Harsh/-
U T
Checking your session…