Yogi Rai vs State of Bihar and Another

S.N. Jha, J.—Cr. Misc. No. 1334/98 has been filed by the informant of Kalyanpur P.S. Case No. 141 of 1996 for cancellation of bail granted by this Court to opposite party No. 2 Vijay Kumar Rai in Cr. Misc. No. 18066/97. Cr. Misc. No. 4075 of 1998 has been filed by Yogi Rai for bail in the aforesaid case i.e. Kalyanpur P.S. Case No. 141/96. Prayer for bail was refused by this Court on 27.3.98. In the circumstances of the case, mentioned hereinafter, notice was issued to the two deponents of the affidavits, namely, Raju Singh and Chandeshwar Rai filed in the previous applications to show cause why order for their prosecution should not be passed. Notice was also issued, in Cr. Misc. No. 1334 of 1990, to Vijay Kumar Rai to show cause why bail should not be cancelled. Pursuant to the said orders, show cause has been filed by Vijay Kumar Rai as well as Raju Singh and Chandeshwar Rai in the respective cases. It may be mentioned here that Vijay Kumar Rai is the son of Yogi Rai, the Petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 4075 of 1998.

Tfhe facts so far as relevant for the purpose of these two applications, are as follows. Cr. Misc. No. 2039 of 1997 was filed for bail in Kalyanpur P.S. Case No. 141 of 1996 by Yogi Rai, Vijay Kumar Rai and one Rakesh Yadav. By order dated 17.2.97, prayer for bail on behalf of Yogi Rai and Vijay Kumar Rai was rejected. Rakesh Yadav, however, was granted bail. The prayer for bail was reiterated by both Yogi Rai and Vijay Kumar Rai in Cr. Misc. No. 12542 of 1997 which was rejected on 16.7.97 but with an observation that they may renew the prayer in February 1998. Vijay Kumar Rai, thereafter, separately moved this Court for bail in Cr. Misc. No. 18066 of 1997. In the application he suppressed the earlier order passed in Cr. Misc. No. 12542 of 1997. On 3.10.97 this Court in ignorance of the observations contained in the order dated 16.7.97 passed in the said case granted bail to him. Yogi Rai then filed Cr. Misc. 20577/97. He too suppressed the said order dated 16.7.97 in Cr. Misc. 12542/97. As circumstances, however, would have it, the informant of the case brought to the notice of this Court the fact that the prayer for bail has been rejected earlier on 16.7.97 with an observation that he could renew the prayer in 1998. the application, in the circumstances, was dismissed as withdrawn on 13.11.97. It may be mentioned here that the affidavits in support of the contents of the applications in both the cases i.e. Cr. Misc. 18066/97, and Cr. Misc. 20577/97 were sworn by Raju Rai. Yogi Rai, thereafter filed the present application, Cr. Misc. 4075 of 1998. Curiously, in this application also the fact that Cr. Misc. 20577/97 was earlier withdrawn, as stated above, was suppressed. The affidavit in support of the contents of the application in this case was sworn by Chandeshwar Rai.

On 27.3.98 when the fact regarding suppression of the previous orders, mentioned above, came to the notice of this Court, while rejecting the prayer for bail, notice was issued to the said two deponents as mentioned above. Notice was also issued to Vijay Kumar Rai as he had obtained the order by suppressing the material fact. As noted at the outset, they have filed their show cause.

Mr. Jagnnath Singh, appearing for Chandeshwar Singh, submitted that the deponent bonafide believed that the result of Cr. Misc. 20577/97 was not relevant for consideration of the prayer for bail since in terms of the observations contained in the order dated 16.7.97 in Cr. Misc 12542/97, Yogi Rai was entitled to renew the prayer in February 1998. Mr. S.K Katriar, learned Counsel appearing for Raju Singh, submitted that Ram Preet Rai, who had sworn affidavit in Cr. Misc. No 12542/97, did not disclose the result on that case and, thus, being ignorant of the order pased in that case, reference was not made to it in Cr. Misc. No. 18066/97 As regards the suppression of the order in Cr. Misc. No. 20577/97, he submitted that the Petitioner i.e. Yogi Rai did not derive any advantage inasmuch as the application (Cr. Misc. 20577/97) was. ultimately withdrawn.

Mr. Katriar also appeared for Vijay Kumar Rai. As regards him, he submitted that being in incarceration since 19.11.96, he was not "in the least" aware of the steps being taken to have him released on bail. Mr. Katriar also contended that having regard to the nature of the offences allegedly committed by him falling u/s 307 I.PC, the incarceration for period of one year should be considered as sufficient. And this Court, therefore, may not pass any order for cancellation of bail to him.

I have considered the submission of the counsel. In the facts of the case, I am inclined to give benefit of doubt to both Chandeshwar Rai and Raju Singh. As noticed above, the affidavits in support of the contents of the applications in different cases were sworn by different persons and it may well be that as a result of some communication gap, they were not made aware of the rejection of the prayer in the earlier case. The case of Vijay Kumar Rai, however, stands on a different footing. As regards him, the fact remains that he has derived undue advantage from suppression of the order passed in Cr. Misc. 12542/97. But for that, pursuant to the order dated 16.7.97 passed in that case, he would have remained in jail upto February 1998. By suppressing the earlier order, however, he managed his release on around 3.10.97 i.e. more than four months earlier. Showing any compassion to him would amount to giving seal of approval to a wrong conduct undermining the administration of justice and also encouraging filing of similar applications and getting bail on suppression of material facts.

I am conscious of the decision which have taken the view that once bail is granted, the privilege of the bail should not be lightly fiddled because it involves the question of liberty of a citizen and bail should, therefore, be cancelled only where the accused commits any misuse of the privilege. However, in my opinion, it is of utmost importance that the people''s faith in the administration of justice is maintained. Of late, a trend has grown to suppress material facts and secure release on bail. In such cases, the ordinary rule that the bail once granted should be cancelled only when the accused commits any misuse of privilege, can have no application. In order that the sanctity of this Court and the orders passed by it are maintained, I am inclined to recall the order dated 3.10.97 in Cr. Misc. 8066 of 1997.

The accused Vijay Kumar Rai is, accordingly, directed to surrender to custody in the court below which is in seisin of Kalyanpur Rs. case No. 141/96 forthwith. If he fails to do so, the court concerned shall take coercive steps to apprehend him in accordance with law.

Cr. Misc. No. 1334 of 1998 is accordingly allowed. Cr. Misc. No. 4075 of 1998 stands disposed of.