Patna High Court
IRFANA KHATUNversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
The court held that there was no sufficient ground to cancel the bail and dismissed the petition.
Summary
The petitioner, Irfana Khatun, sought cancellation of the regular bail granted to the accused, Md. Kalamuddin, alleging that the investigating officer had suppressed material facts by claiming no injury report existed, while the petitioner produced a later report showing a grievous leg injury. The court noted that the investigating officer's requisition dated 30.11.2022 stated no injury report, and the injury report submitted by the petitioner was dated 26.12.2022, after the bail order of 19.12.2022. It was also observed that the discharge ticket relied upon by the bail order pertained to an earlier incident, not the present case, and that at the time of bail grant no injury report was on record. The court emphasized that the criteria for cancelling bail differ from those applicable at the stage of granting bail. Consequently, the court found no sufficient ground to interfere with the bail order and dismissed the petition to cancel bail, while leaving open the possibility of future application if supervening circumstances arise.
Issues considered
- Whether the regular bail granted to the accused can be cancelled on the ground of alleged suppression of material facts regarding an injury report.
- Whether a later injury report, filed after the bail order, affects the parameters for bail cancellation.
- Whether the criteria for cancellation of bail differ from those applicable at the stage of grant of bail.
Subjects
- bail
- cancellation of bail
- injury report
- suppression of material facts
- criminal procedure
- high court
- regular bail
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8028 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-360 Year-2022 Thana- BAHADURPUR District- Patna
======================================================
IRFANA KHATUN Wife of Md. Salauddin Resident of Mohalla- New
Azimabad Colony, Mahendru, P.S.- Bahadurpur, District- Patna (Bihar)
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Md. Kalamuddin Son of Late Md. Jalaluddin Resident of Mohalla- New
Azimabad Colony, Mahendru, P.S.- Bahadurpur, District- Patna (Bihar)
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Aklavya Chandan Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms.Rina Sinha, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
4 08-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The present application has been filed for
cancellation of regular bail granted to the opposite party no.2 vide
order dated 19.12.2022 passed by the learned Addl. District and
Sessions Judge-I, Patna City, Patna in B.P. No. 1563 of 2022.
3. The primary ground urged by the learned counsel
for the petitioner is that there has been suppression of material
facts, inasmuch as the Investigating Officer had submitted a
report stating therein that the informant i.e. the injured, the
husband of the present petitioner, had not undergone any medical
treatment in any hospital, therefore, no injury report was available
on record in the present case. Contrary to the said stand taken by
the Investigating Officer, the petitioner has brought on record
Annexure-6 to the petition which shows that the informant had, in
fact, sustained a grievous injury on his leg.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8028 of 2023(4) dt.08-01-2026
2/3
4. Upon perusal of the records, this Court finds that
the Investigating Officer had submitted a requisition dated
30.11.2022 stating that no injury report was available on record.
The injury report relied upon by the petitioner is dated
26.12.2022, which is not only subsequent to the date of the
Investigating Officer’s requisition but also post the date of grant
of regular bail to the opposite party no.2 on 19.12.2022.
5. It is further evident that the impugned order
granting bail to the opposite party no.2 refers to a discharge ticket
produced by the informant before the Court concerned, which is
dated 14.09.2022, whereas the alleged occurrence took place on
31.10.2022. Upon inquiry, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the discharge ticket dated 14.09.2022 pertains to an
injury sustained by the informant in connection with an earlier
case and not to the incident involved in the present case. It is also
not in dispute that the opposite party no.2 had remained in
custody since 01.11.2022 and was granted bail on 19.12.2022 and
at the time of grant of bail, there was no injury report available on
record.
6. This Court has also examined the F.I.R., which
discloses general and omnibus allegations of assault against all
the accused persons including opposite party no.2. Although it is
alleged that firearms were also used in the incident, the injury
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8028 of 2023(4) dt.08-01-2026
3/3
report (Annexure-6) indicates that the informant sustained a
grievous injury on the left leg caused by hard and blunt object,
however, not on vital part of the body.
7. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and
circumstances of the case and also considering settled position of
law that the parameters for cancellation of bail are entirely
different from those applicable at the stage of grant of bail, this
Court finds no reason to interfere with the order passed by the
learned Court concerned.
8. Accordingly, this Court does not find any
sufficient ground to cancel the bail granted to opposite party no.2
and hence, the instant application stands dismissed.
9. However, it is clarified that in the event of any
supervening circumstances arising subsequent to the grant of bail,
the petitioner shall always be at liberty to approach the Court
concerned for appropriate redressal of grievances.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
Harsh/-
U T
Checking your session…