In Basant Rai & Anr. vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran passed a 3-page long order dated September 16, 2026, wherein, it allowed the exemption applications, granted leave and concluded:"6. The matter is essentially a civil dispute and proceedings with respect to the same are pending. It is also noted that the past criminal antecedents of the appellants pertain to minor offences having no bearing on the instant dispute at hand. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, the common impugned Orders of the High Court are set aside and the original Order of the Sessions Court is restored. 8. The appeals stand disposed of. 9. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."
The appellants had approached the Supreme Court apprehending arrest in connection with FIR No.43/24 registered on February 15, 2024 against the appellants in connection with offences u/S 406, 420, 467, 468
& 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1861 and have alleged to have forged certain signatures to effectuate a sale deed. The appellants were granted anticipatory bail by the Principal Sessions Judge, Purnea vide order dated October 4, 2024, which was subsequently cancelled by Justice Sandeep Kumar of the Patna High Court vide Order dated May 5, 2026 citing suppression of past criminal antecedents of the appellants.
The Court recorded that the counsel for the appellants had submitted that the matter pertains to a civil dispute and that the Suit with respect to the same had been dismissed. The counsel for the Respondents had submitted that the civil matter was dismissed in default and restoration with respect to the same is pending.
Earlier, in Bimal Kumar @ Bimal Kumar Gupta vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (2026), Justice Kumar of the Court had passed a 4-page long order dated May 5, 2026, wherein, "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 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." Siyaram Shahi was the counsel for the petitioner.
The Cr. Misc. application was filed for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted by the Principal Sessions Judge, Purnea by a common order dated October 4, 2024. 3. The cancellation for anticipatory bail granted to Manish Kumar Singh, Basant Rai and Rupesh Kumar, the opposite party nos. 2, 4 and 5 respectively which was filed on the ground that these opposite parties has suppressed their criminal antecedents and have obtained anticipatory bail from the Court below.
With regard to the same, the following statement was made in paragraph-13 of the bail cancellation petition which reads: “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.
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.”
Supreme Court did not endorse the order by the High Court. It has approved the order by the the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Purnea.
No comments:
Post a Comment