Ramadhar Pandey vs State of Bihar and Others

Om Prakash, J.—Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the State are present. But opposite party No. 2 Suresh Pandey is neither present in person nor through a counsel. No show cause has been filed on his behalf. Office note dated 26th June, 1991, shows that personal service of notice issued under registered cover, was affected on him on refusal.

In the circumstances heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the State.

Also perused the records of Cr. Misc. No. 12202/90, Suresh Pandey v. State of Bihar, disposed of on 28-11-1990 and Cr. Misc. No. 832/91 (Suresh Pandey v. The States of Bihar) disposed on 24-1-1991.

Order dated 28-11-1990 passed by Hon''ble Mr. Justice S.C. Mookherjee in Cr. Misc. No. 12202/90 shows that application for bail in Arrah Mufassil P.S. Case No. 160/90 filed on behalf of Suresh Pandey was dismissed by his Lordship on such date.

Order dated 24-1-1991 passed by me in Cr. Misc. No. 832/91 shows that prayer of Suresh Pandey for bail in Arrah Mufassil P.S. Case No. 166/90 was allowed as it was argued that the Halla raised attracted informant''s family members and having a look at them, Suresh fired three shots from his licenced gun without causing any injury to any body.

Now learned Counsel for Petitioner Ramadhar Pandey, the informant, has submitted that he has nothing to say with regard to the merits of the case on which Suresh Pandey was granted bail. But he presses a point that Suresh Pandey has succeeded on 24-1-1991 in obtaining bail in Arrah Mufassil P.S. Case No. 166/90 by concealing and supressing a material fact. In para 2 of his bail application in Cr. Misc. No. 832/91 in which bail has been granted) he has stated that he did not move this Hon''ble Court earlier for grant of bail in this case i.e. Arrah Mufassil P.S. Case No. 166/90 whereas, in fact, he had filed an application for bail in the above P.S. Case in Cr. Misc. No. 12202/90 which was rejected by Hon''ble S.C. Mookherjee, J. on 28-11-1990. In this connection, he has invited court''s attention to para 2 of bail petition of Suresh Pandey in Cr. Misc. No. 832/91 which reads as under:

para 2. That the Petitioner did not move this Hon''ble Court earlier for grant of bail in this case (i.e. Arrah Mufassil P.S. Case No. 166/90).

From the above, it is crystal clear that the opposite party No. 2 Suresh Pandey has deliberately and intentionally suppressed and concealed a material fact which was very much within his knowledge just in order to secure bail. Had it been mentioned in para No. 2 that, his prayer for bail was earlier rejected by Hon''ble Mr. Justice S.C. Mookherjee in Cr. Misc. No. 12202/90 disposed of on 28-11-1990, I would have not heard his application in Cr. Misc. No. 832/91 disposed of on 24-1-1991. Instead, as per practice, I would have ordered that his such (subsequent) bail application be placed before the same Bench which rejected his prayer for bail earlier i.e. before Hon''ble Mr. Justice S.C. Mookherjee, under orders of Hon''ble C.J. Thus I was misled by such suppression of a material fact and false averment made by opposite party No. 2 Suresh Pandey in para 2 of Cr. Misc. No. 832/91.

In my view, a party who deliberately or intentionally supresses or conceals a material fact and makes a false statement in his application to secure a favourable order from the Court, should not be allowed to continue to enjoy the fruits of his such misdeed. He cannot reasonably be allowed to continue to remain in the advantageous position secured by him by concealment or suppression of a material fact and making a false statement in an application filed before a Court. I am therefore, of opinion that it is a fit case in which bail granted to opposite party No. 2 Suresh Pandey by me on 24-1-1991 in Cr. Misc. No. 832/91 should be cancelled. Accordingly, it is hereby cancelled.

The Chief Judicial Magistrate Bhojpur at Arrah/the trial court is directed to take all coercive steps for the arrest of opposite party No. 2 Suresh Pandey in Arrah Mufassil P.S. Case No. 166/90 under Sections 302, 307, 327/34 and 27 of the Arms Act at the earliest.