Patna High Court
Mahendra SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
The court held that there is no sufficient ground to cancel the anticipatory bail as no suppression of fact or misrepresentation is established.
Summary
Mahendra Singh filed an application seeking cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to Abhay Singh and Archana Kumari, alleging that they misrepresented the nature of injuries suffered by Amit Kumar to obtain bail. The petitioner submitted injury reports from the Primary Health Centre, Sadar Hospital and an AIIMS certificate showing four grievous injuries, none of which were on the head and none attributable to the respondents. The court examined the earlier bail order, the injury reports, and noted that the AIIMS report was not available at the time of the bail application, finding no deliberate suppression of facts. It held that the injuries reported do not establish any link to the respondents and that the threshold for cancelling bail—overwhelming circumstances—was not met. Consequently, the application for cancellation was dismissed, leaving the anticipatory bail in force.
Issues considered
- Whether the anticipatory bail granted to the respondents should be cancelled on the ground of alleged suppression or misrepresentation of injury facts.
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- cancellation of bail
- suppression of fact
- injury report
- criminal procedure
- bail discretion
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.86961 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-38 Year-2025 Thana- NARDIGANJ District- Nawada
======================================================
Mahendra Singh S/O Visheshwar Singh Resident of village - Kahuara,
Nawada, Kahuara, Bihar-80519
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Abhay Singh @ Abhay Kumar S/O Surendra Singh Resident of village -
Kahuara, P.S- Nardiganj,DIst.- Nawada
3. Archana Kumari W/O Abhay Singh @ Abhay Kumar Resident of village -
Kahuara, P.S- Nardiganj,DIst.- Nawada
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, Adv.
Mr. Sidhendra Narayan Singh, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Ram Priya Sharan Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
6 17-04-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned counsel for the State.
2. The present application is for cancellation of
anticipatory bail granted to the opposite party nos. 2 and 3
vide order dated 26.09.2025 (Annexure-P/4) by submitting
that the injuries suffered by Amit Kumar, being four in
number, were all grievous in nature but the respondents by
giving wrong impression before the Court that some of the
injuries were simple and only some grievous, have obtained
the order of anticipatory bail. In order to buttress his
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86961 of 2025(6) dt.17-04-2026
2/5
submission he has annexed the injury report as Annexure-P/2
which includes the injury reports of the Primary Health
Centre, the Sadar Hospital, Nawada and also the injury
certificate issued by the AIIMS, Patna. It has been submitted
that by looking at the injury certificate issued by the AIIMS,
Patna it would appear that four injuries suffered by injured
Amit Kumar are all grievous in nature, and since this
document was not placed before the Court, the privilege of
anticipatory bail was granted to the opposite party nos. 2 and
3, which amounts to suppression of fact.
3. Learned APP for the State is also present.
4. This Court has gone through the present
application filed on behalf of the petitioner/informant and
upon going through the earlier order of this Court, I find that
the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 had been granted the privilege
of anticipatory bail on various grounds one of them being
consideration of the injury report also. It was also considered
that both the sides were gotias having dispute with regard to
partition and petitioner no. 2, who is opposite party no. 3
herein, was a lady and the wife of petitioner no. 1 (opposite
party no. 2 herein), who has been attributed ornamental
allegations of indulging in assault by means of fists etc.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86961 of 2025(6) dt.17-04-2026
3/5
5. So far as opposite party no. 2 is concerned, the
injury report of Amit Kumar issued by the Primary Health
Centre was placed as Annexure-P/2 series in the earlier
application which indicated three injuries, the first being a
lacerated wound on the left cheek, the second being lacerated
wound on left side of nose and the third being a swelling on
the nose, all caused by hard and blunt substance. The nature
of injuries was also indicated as injury nos. 1 and 2 being
simple in nature and it was only injury no. 3 which was
awaiting x-ray from Sadar Hospital for the opinion. In the
order granting anticipatory bail it was well taken into
consideration that the third injury which was awaiting x-ray
was on the nose of the said Amit Kumar and the specific
allegation of assault on the nose of the said Amit Kumar was
attributed to co-accused Uday Singh and not to opposite party
nos. 2 and 3. In the present application for cancellation also
the injury report of the Primary Health Centre indicates
grievous injury on the nasal bones and the injury report issued
by the Sadar Hospital, Nawada is also on record which also
indicates fracture on the nasal bones and these injuries were
not attributed to opposite party nos. 2 and 3.
6. The petitioner is basically relying upon the injury
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86961 of 2025(6) dt.17-04-2026
4/5
report issued by the AIIMS, Patna for which an application
was given by the Investigating Officer on 18.03.2025. This
document also indicates that the two grievous injuries which
have been indicated are stitched wounds and they are also on
the nose portion of the injured Amit Kumar. None of the
injuries, which have been found to be grievous, indicate an
injury on the head of the said Amit Kumar, which can be
specifically attributed to opposite party nos. 2 and 3.
7. Taking all the facts and circumstances into
consideration, this Court reaches the considered conclusion
that the injury certificate of the AIIMS may not have been
available with the opposite parties at the time of the filing of
the bail application and this does not indicate any deliberate
suppression or concealment of fact. In any view of the matter,
the said injury report also does not indicate any grievous
injury on the head of the said Amit kumar, the author of which
would be opposite party nos. 2 and 3.
8. The law is settled with regard to cancellation of
bail that there is a vivid distinction between parameters while
considering grant of bail vis-a-vis while deciding its
cancellation and very cogent and overwhelming
circumstances are necessary to interfere with the discretion
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86961 of 2025(6) dt.17-04-2026
5/5
exercised while granting bail.
9. In view of the settled law, this Court does not find
any good ground to cancel the bail already granted to opposite
party nos. 2 and 3 finding it not to be a case of any
suppression of fact. However, in case any ground of
tampering or influencing the evidence or witness supported by
clinching evidence, is taken at a subsequent stage, the
petitioner would always have the liberty to move the
appropriate forum for ventilating such grievance.
10. Accordingly, the present application is
dismissed.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
Abhishek/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.