Amrendra Paswan vs The State of Bihar

Court
Patna High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.73361 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-45 Year-2024 Thana- ATHMALGOLA District- Patna
======================================================
Amrendra Paswan S/o Jitu Paswan Posted at Chief Manager T and I, Eastern
Region Pipeline, Indian Oil Corporation LTD, PS- Beur, Distt. - Patna
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sudarshan Lal S/o Shaildendra Prasad Yadav
3. Aryan Raj S/o Prem Kumar.
4. Pramod Kumar @ Pramod S/o Surendra Prasad.
All are resident of village - Oli Bigha, PS - Chandi, District -
Nalanda, (Presently all are in judicial custody in Beur Central Jail, P.S. -
Beur, District - Patna)
... ... Opposite Parties
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Raj Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Rohit Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Navin Kumar Pandey, APP
For the O.P. Nos.2 to 4 : Mr. Ashok Kumar Kashyap, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
Date : 01-09-2026
The present application has been filed by the
petitioner under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, praying for cancellation of the regular bail
granted to the opposite party nos.2 to 4, namely, Sudarshan Lal,
Aryan Raj and Pramod Kumar @ Pramod, by the learned
Additional District & Sessions Judge-I, Barh (Patna), vide order
dated 13.03.2024 passed in Bail Petition No.85 of 2024, in
connection with Athmalgola P.S. Case No.45 of 2024, registered

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73361 of 2024 dt.01-09-2026
2/25
for the offences punishable under Sections 285, 379, 511 and
120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 15(2) and 15(4) of
the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of
User in Land) Act, 1962.
2 . The petitioner, who is posted as the Chief
Manager (T & I), Eastern Region Pipeline, Indian Oil
Corporation Ltd., has preferred the present application in that
capacity. The principal grounds urged are that the impugned
order was obtained by the opposite party nos.2 to 4 upon a false
projection of clean antecedents and upon false statements that
they were neither arrested from the spot nor was anything
incriminating recovered from their possession, and that the
impugned order has otherwise been passed without application
of judicial mind and without recording the satisfaction mandated
by Section 16C of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines
(Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (hereinafter
referred to as the Act of 1962).
3. Notice was issued to the opposite party nos.2
to 4 by the order dated 09.12.2025, upon service whereof the
learned counsel entered appearance on their behalf. By the order
dated 16.07.2026, this Court directed the petitioner to bring on
record the certified copy of the bail petition filed before the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73361 of 2024 dt.01-09-2026
3/25
learned Court below, and granted liberty to the opposite party
no.2 to file a counter affidavit. In compliance thereof, a
supplementary affidavit was filed on behalf of the petitioner,
annexing the certified copy of the bail petition as Annexure-P/4.
No counter affidavit controverting the said document has been
brought on record.
4. The prosecution case, as set out in the self-
recorded statement of the official informant, Lalit Vijay, the then
Station House Officer of Athmalgola Police Station, recorded on
08.02.2024, is that he received a secret information that some
persons were present, in suspicious circumstances, near the
I.O.C.L. pipeline between the four-lane road near village
Sabnima and the Sabnima Taal, and were preparing to commit a
major occurrence there. The informant, along with the police
force and the chaukidars , reached the place at about 16:00
hours, whereupon four persons present there attempted to flee
but were apprehended, and they disclosed their names as Aryan
Raj, Sudarshan Lal and Pramod Kumar, the opposite party nos.2
to 4 herein, and one Sudesh Kumar.
5. On search of the apprehended persons,
conducted in the presence of two chaukidars who were made
witnesses, mobile phones were recovered from the pockets of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73361 of 2024 dt.01-09-2026
4/25
the opposite party nos.2 to 4, iron digging implements ( khanti )
from the hands of Aryan Raj and Sudarshan Lal, and an inch-
tape and an iron rod from Sudesh Kumar, while at the very place
where a pit was being dug, wrenches, a chisel and nut-bolts
were found kept, along with a motorcycle bearing Registration
No. BR-21V-2097. On interrogation, the apprehended persons
disclosed that they extract oil from the I.O.C.L. pipeline by
drilling holes therein, along with four other named associates,
and that they had committed similar occurrences at several
places. A seizure list was also prepared on the spot.
6. On the basis of the aforesaid statement,
Athmalgola P.S. Case No.45 of 2024 came to be registered
under Sections 285, 379, 511 and 120-B of the Indian Penal
Code and Sections 15(2) and 15(4) of the Act of 1962. The
opposite party nos.2 to 4 were arrested from the place of
occurrence itself and were remanded to judicial custody. Upon
conclusion of the investigation, charge-sheet came to be
submitted against them and the other accused persons under the
aforesaid sections, with the addition of Section 7 of the
Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and Sections 3 and 4 of the
Explosive Substances Act, 1908.
7. The first prayer for bail of the opposite party

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73361 of 2024 dt.01-09-2026
5/25
nos.2 to 4 was rejected by the learned Court below on
13.02.2024. Thereafter, they moved a regular bail application
before the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-I, Barh,
being Bail Petition No.85 of 2024, filed on 04.03.2024, the
certified copy whereof is Annexure-P/4 to the supplementary
affidavit. In paragraph no.3 thereof, the opposite party nos.2 to 4
made the categorical statement that they have no criminal
antecedents, and ground no.(iv) thereof reads as under:-
“(iv) For that, the truth is that the petitioner has not been
arrested at the Spot and Nothing has been
recovered from Possession of the petitioner .”
8. The said bail petition came to be allowed by
the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-I, Barh, vide
the impugned order dated 13.03.2024. Since the entire
controversy in the present application turns upon the said order,
it would be apposite to reproduce the entire order which reads
thus:-
U;k;ky;] vij ftyk ,oa l= U;k;k/kh'k] çFke] ck<+
“
fu;fer tekur vkosnu la[;k 85@2024
vFkeyxksyk Fkkuk dkaM la[;k 45@2024
13-03-2024
vkosnd vfHk;qäx.k 1- lqn'kZu yky] 2- vk;Zu jkt ,oa
3- çeksn dh vksj ls fu;fer tekur vkosnu /kkjk 439 n-ç-l- ds
rgr~ nkf[ky fd;k x;k gSA tekur vkosnu dh çfr vfHk;kstu
dks çnku fd;k x;k gSA ;g okn vFkeyxksyk Fkkuk dkaM la[;k
45@2024] varxZr /kkjk 285] 379] 511] 120ch Hkk-n-fo- ,oa 15¼2½
,oa 15¼4½ isVªksfy;e ,oa [kfut ikbZi ykbZu ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksxdrkZ

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73361 of 2024 dt.01-09-2026
6/25
ds vf/kdkj dk vf/kxzg.k½ la'kks/ku vf/kfu;e 2011 ls lEcaf/kr
gSA vkosnd vfHk;qäx.k fnukad 09-02-2024 ls U;kf;d vfHkj{kk
esa gSA
vkosnd vfHk;qäx.k ds fo}ku vf/koäk tekur vkosnu
dks lapkfyr djrs gSa rFkk fuosnu djrs gSa fd vkosnd
vfHk;qäx.k funksZ"k gS] dksbZ vijk/k ugh fd;k gSA vkosnd
vfHk;qäx.k dks bl okn esa >wBk Q¡lk;k x;k gSA ftl çdkj dh
?kVuk çkFkfedh esa dgh x;h gS] ml çdkj dh dksbZ ?kVuk
ugha ?kVh gSA vkosnd vfHk;qäx.k isVªksy dh pksjh ikbZi ykbZu ds
}kjk ugha fd;k gSA vkosnd vfHk;qäx.k ds ikl ls pksjh dk
isVªksy cjken ugha gqvk gSA vkosnd vfHk;qäx.k fnukad 09-02-
2024 ls U;kf;d vfHkj{kk esa gSA vkosnd vfHk;qäx.k l{ke
tekurnkj nsus dks rS;kj gSaA vr% vkosnd vfHk;qäx.k dks
tekur ij eqä fd;k tk;A
vfHk;kstu tekur dk fojks/k djrs gSaA
vfHk;kstu dk okn la{ksi esa ;g gS fd bl okn ds lwpd
Fkkuk/;{k vFkeyxksyk gSaA bUgksaus Lo- Vafdr c;ku vafdr djok;k
gS] ftlesa dgk gS fd fnukad 08-02-2024 le; 15%40 cts xqIr
lwpuk feyh fd xzke lcuhek ds ikl Qksj ykbZu ,oa xzke
lcuhek ds chp lcuhek Vky NksVdk dksu ds mÙkj ds ikl vkbZ-
vks-lh-,y- ikbZi ykbZu ds ikl lafnX/k voLFkk esa dqN O;fä
ikbZi ykbZu ds ikl fdlh okjnkr dks vatke nsus ds fQjkd esa
gSA lwpuk ds lR;kiu gsrq le; djhc 16 cts pank ds ikl Qksj
ykbZu lcuhek Vky vkbZ-vks-lh-,y- ikbZi ykbZu ds lehi igq¡pk
rFkk xqIrpj ds crk;s vuqlkj pkSdhnkj ds fu'kkunsgh ds vk/kkj
ij [ksr gksrs gq;s ikbZi ykbZu dk ?ksjkcanh fd;k rks iqfyl dks
ns[kdj pkj O;fä Hkkxus dk ç;kl fd;s] ftls iqfyl cy ds
lg;ksx ls idM+k x;k ftlesa vk;Zu jkt] lqn'kZu yky] çeksn
dqekj ,oa lqns'k dqekj crk;sA idM+k;s vfHk;qäx.k dk fof/kor
tek ryk'kh fy;k x;k ,oa vfHk;qäx.k ds ikl ls eksckbZy] [karh]
dqnky cjken fd;k x;kA vkosnd vfHk;qäksa ds }kjk vU;
vfHk;qäksa dk uke crk;sA
mHk; i{kksa dks lqukA vfHkys[k dk voyksdu fd;kA
vfHkys[k voyksdu ls çrhr gksrk gS fd bl okn esa
çkFkfedh /kkjk 285] 379] 511] 120ch Hkk-n-fo- ,oa 15¼2½]
15¼4½ isVªksfy;e ,oa [kfut ikbZi ykbZu ¼Hkwfe esa
mi;ksxdrkZ ds vf/kdkj dk vf/kxzg.k½ la'kks/ku vf/kfu;e

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73361 of 2024 dt.01-09-2026
7/25
2011 ds varxZr ntZ fd;k x;k gSA dkaM nSfudh vçkIr
gSA vkosnd vfHk;qäx.k ds ikl ls pksjh dk
isVªksy@Mhty cjken ugha gqvk gSA vkosnd vfHk;qäx.k
ij vkjksi pksjh djus dk ç;kl dk gSA tIrh lwph dh
Nk;kçfr vfHkys[k ds lkFk layXu gS] ftlds vuqlkj vk;Zu
jkt ls eksckbZy rFkk feêh [kksnus okyk [karh] lqn'kZu yky
ds ikl ls eksckbZy ,oa [karh rFkk çeksn dqekj ds ikl
ls ,d eksckbZy tIr fd;k x;k gSA dkaM nSfudh ds fy,
i;kZIr le; vij yksd vfHk;kstd dks çnku fd;k x;k
gSA dkaM nSfudh bl okn esa çkIr ugha gks ldk gSA
vkosnd vfHk;qäx.k ds ikl ls cjken eksckbZy
vfHk;qäx.k dk gS rFkk [karh cjken gksus dh ckr dgh xbZ
gS tks lkekU;r% xzkeh.k {ks= esa lHkh ?kjksa esa jgrk gSA
vfHkys[k ij ,slk dksbZ lk{; ugha gS] ftlls çrhr gks lds
fd vfHk;qäx.k [karh dk bLrseky ikbZi ykbZu ls rsy
pqjkus esa djrs FksA vkosnd vfHk;qäx.k fnukad 09-02-2024
ls U;kf;d vfHkj{kk esa gSA
vr% mijksä rF;ksa o ifjfLFkfr;ksa ij fopkj ds i'pkr
vkosnd vfHk;qäx.k dks tekur dk ykHk fn;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr
çrhr gksrk gSA vkosnd vfHk;qäx.k dks eks0 10]000@& #i;s dk
ca/ki= rFkk leku jkf'k ds nks çfrHkw nkf[ky djus ds i'pkr~
tekur ij eqä djus dk vkns'k fn;k tkrk gSA ”
9. Adverting to the aforesaid order, the learned
counsel for the petitioner has submitted that three features
thereof deserve to be noticed at the very outset. Firstly , the
impugned order records that the case diary could not be received
despite sufficient time having been granted to the learned APP,
secondly , the impugned order does not contain even a whisper
about the criminal antecedents of the opposite party nos.2 to 4
and thirdly , it proceeds as if the accused before it were first
offenders, and that it neither adverts to Section 16C of the Act of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73361 of 2024 dt.01-09-2026
8/25
1962 nor records either of the twin satisfactions mandated
thereunder.
10. It is next submitted that subsequently, by the
order dated 14.05.2024, by which time the case diary had been
received, the very same learned Court rejected the regular bail
applications of the co-accused Manish Kumar and Md. Dablu,
being Bail Petition Nos.137 of 2024 and 147 of 2024, arising
out of the very same case, upon recording that the confessional
statements of the accused persons stand recorded in the case
diary and the witnesses have supported the occurrence. Further,
eight similar cases relating to the theft of petroleum stand
registered against the applicants therein, and that the offence
relates to national security and national loss. The relevant
portion of the said order reads thus:-
Þ xxx bl okn esa vU; vfHk;qäx.k dks dkaM nSfudh
çkIr ugha gksus ,oa vkijkf/kd bfrgkl ugha jgus ds dkj.k
tekur çnku fd;k x;k FkkA vkosnd vfHk;qäx.k ds
fo:) dqy 8 okn isVªksfy;e pksjh ls lacaf/kr ntZ fd;k
x;k gSA lHkh okn esa vkjksi leku gSA vkosnd vfHk;qäx.k
dk vkijkf/kd bfrgkl gSA bl {ks= esa isVªksfy;e pksjh
dh ?kVuk yxkrkj c<+ jgk gSA vfHk;qä dk vijk/k jk"Vªh;
lqj{kk@jk"Vªh; gkfu ls lacaf/kr gSA
vr% mijksä rF;ksa o ifjfLFkfr;ksa ij fopkj ds i'pkr
vkosnd vfHk;qäx.k dk vkijkf/kd bfrgkl dks /;ku esa j[krs gq;s
tekur ij eqä djuk U;k;ksfpr ugha le>rk gw¡A vr% vkosnd
vfHk;qäx.k dk tekur vkosnu vLoh—r fd;k tkrk gSAß
11 . It is pointed out that the co-accused Manish

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73361 of 2024 dt.01-09-2026
9/25
Kumar and Md. Dablu had not even been arrested from the
place of occurrence, their names having surfaced in the
confessional statements of the arrested accused, whereas the
opposite party nos.2 to 4 were apprehended at the place of
occurrence itself, along with the implements of the crime. It is
further submitted that the opposite party nos.2 to 4 are accused
in as many as nine other cases of a similar nature, which have
not been specifically controverted on their behalf, namely, Barh
P.S. Case Nos.584 of 2023 and 50 of 2024, Pandarak P.S. Case
Nos.09 of 2023 and 10 of 2024, Bakhtiyarpur P.S. Case No.73
of 2024, Salimpur P.S. Case Nos.292 of 2023 and 03 of 2024,
Khushrupur P.S. Case No.436 of 2023 and Naubatpur P.S. Case
No.759 of 2023, each registered under Sections 285, 379 and/or
427 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 15(2) and
15(4) of the Act of 1962 and Section 7 of the Essential
Commodities Act, and most of them also under Sections 3 and 4
of the Explosive Substances Act.
12. It is further submitted that the impugned
order is unsustainable in law, having been obtained upon false
statements and upon a complete suppression of criminal
antecedents. Further, the assertion in ground no.(iv) of the bail
petition stands falsified by the F.I.R. and the seizure lists

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73361 of 2024 dt.01-09-2026
10/25
themselves, and that the suppression of criminal antecedents and
the making of false statements in a bail petition amount to
playing fraud upon the Court, and therefore, the order so
procured is vitiated at its very inception. Reliance in this behalf
has been placed upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Kusha Duruka vs. State of Odisha , reported as (2024)
4 SCC 432 , Kaushal Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, reported as
2025 INSC 871 = 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1473, Zeba Khan vs.
State of U.P. & Ors., reported as 2026 SCC OnLine SC 188 ,
Deepak Yadav vs. State of U.P. & Anr., reported as (2022) 8
SCC 559, Neeru Yadav vs. State of U.P. & Anr., reported as
(2014) 16 SCC 508 , and Vipan Kumar Dhir vs. State of Punjab
& Anr., reported as (2021) 15 SCC 518 .
13. It is next submitted that the impugned order
has been passed in the teeth of the binding direction issued by
this Court in Anil Baitha v. State of Bihar (Criminal
Miscellaneous No.34669 of 2021, order dated 02.09.2021) ,
circulated to all the District Courts throughout the State of
Bihar, which obliges the Investigating Officer and the APP to
furnish the criminal antecedent of the accused, and the Court
considering bail to specifically record, the complete criminal
antecedents of the accused in every order granting or refusing

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73361 of 2024 dt.01-09-2026
11/25
bail, but in the present case, the learned Court below neither
called for the criminal antecedent report nor recorded the
antecedents of the opposite party nos.2 to 4. It is further
submitted that the offence under Section 15(4) of the Act of
1962 attracts the embargo of Section 16C thereof, which bars
the release of an accused on bail unless the APP has been given
an opportunity to oppose the application and the Court records
its satisfaction, upon reasonable grounds, that the accused is not
guilty of the offence and is not likely to commit any offence
while on bail, and again in the present case, the learned Court
below has failed to make any reference to Section 16C and also
did not record either of the said satisfactions.
14. It is lastly submitted that the offence alleged
is one of organized, syndicate-driven pilferage of petroleum
products from a live pipeline by puncturing it, which endangers
life and property in the vicinity and causes loss running into
crores of rupees to the public exchequer, and that the opposite
party nos.2 to 4 could never have been enlarged on bail had the
true facts been placed before the Court. Reliance has also been
placed upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ms.
Y v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., reported as (2022) 9 SCC 269 ,
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav &

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73361 of 2024 dt.01-09-2026
12/25
Anr., reported as (2004) 7 SCC 528, Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar
@ Polia & Anr., reported as (2020) 2 SCC 118 , and Puran v.
Rambilas & Anr., reported as (2001) 6 SCC 338 , for the
proposition that a bail order in a serious offence must reflect the
application of a judicial mind, and that an unreasoned or
perverse order is always open to be set aside by the superior
Court.
15. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
the State has supported the case of the petitioner, and has
submitted that the statements made in the bail petition regarding
clean antecedents of the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 and of the
absence of arrest from the spot and of any recovery, are contrary
to the record.
16. Per contra, the learned counsel for the
opposite party nos.2 to 4 has opposed the present application.
He has submitted that the considerations governing the
cancellation of bail stand on a footing entirely different from
those governing its grant, and that bail once granted is not to be
cancelled in a routine, mechanical or punitive manner in the
absence of misuse of the liberty, breach of the conditions of bail,
interference with the investigation or the trial or threat to the
witnesses, none of which is alleged in the present case. It is next

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73361 of 2024 dt.01-09-2026
13/25
submitted that no stolen petroleum product was ever recovered.
Further, the allegation is, at its highest, of an attempt, and that
the learned Court below has exercised its discretion upon the
material then available on the record. Reliance has been placed
upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dolat Ram
& Ors. v. State of Haryana , reported as (1995) 1 SCC 349 ,
Himanshu Sharma v. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported as
(2024) 4 SCC 222, Abdul Basit @ Raju & Ors. v. Mohd. Abdul
Kadir Chaudhary & Anr., reported as (2014) 10 SCC 754.
Further, reliance has been placed on the decision in Prabhakar
Tewari v. State of U.P. & Anr., reported as (2020) 11 SCC 648,
to contend that mere pendency of criminal cases is not, by itself,
a ground to deny bail.
17. I have heard learned counsel for the parties
and perused the materials on record. The moot question that
arises for consideration is whether the impugned order was
obtained by the opposite party nos.2 to 4 upon false statements
and upon a suppression of their criminal antecedents, and
whether it is otherwise illegal and perverse, having been passed
in ignorance of the relevant material and of the mandate of
Section 16C of the Act of 1962, so as to warrant its annulment
by this Court.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73361 of 2024 dt.01-09-2026
14/25
18 . Before adverting to the rival contentions, it
would be apposite to notice the settled law governing the subject
matter, which is no longer res integra . The jurisprudence, as
exhaustively surveyed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of
Karnataka v. Sri Darshan etc., reported as 2025 SCC OnLine
SC 1702 , proceeds upon a clear distinction between two
categories of cases which lie in different compartments
altogether. The first is the cancellation of bail, properly so
called, on account of supervening circumstances or misconduct
subsequent to the grant of bail, in respect whereof the law laid
down in Dolat Ram (supra) requires very cogent,
overwhelming and supervening circumstances to be shown. The
second is the annulment of an order granting bail, which is itself
unjustified, illegal or perverse, having been passed in ignorance
of the relevant material, based upon irrelevant considerations, in
complete disregard of the past criminal record of the accused or
with serious discrepancies causing prejudice to justice, as
illustratively enumerated in Deepak Yadav (supra) . In the
second category, the Court does not dwell upon any supervening
circumstance, but delves into the justifiability and soundness of
the order itself, as explained in Puran (supra) and Neeru Yadav
(supra) , reiterated by a three-Judge Bench in Vipan Kumar

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73361 of 2024 dt.01-09-2026
15/25
Dhir (supra) , and again in Ajwar v. Waseem & Anr., reported as
(2024) 10 SCC 768 , wherein it has been held that an unreasoned
or perverse order of bail is always open to interference, even if
the accused has not misused the liberty granted to him. An order
which overlooks material evidence or proceeds upon an
erroneous premise is perverse in view of the law laid down in
the case of Sri Darshan (supra) .
19 . To the aforesaid two categories, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, in Himanshu Sharma (supra), has added two
further grounds upon which bail already granted is liable to be
cancelled, namely, that the bail was granted in ignorance of
statutory provisions restricting the power of the Court to grant
bail, and that the bail was procured by misrepresentation or
fraud, each of which operates independently of any misuse of
the liberty. A person who obtains an order from a Court by
suppressing or misrepresenting material facts commits fraud
upon the Court, and an order so obtained is a nullity and non est
in the eye of law, to be treated as such by every Court and open
to challenge at any time, even in collateral proceedings, as held
in A.V. Papayya Sastry & Ors. v. Government of A.P. & Ors.,
reported as (2007) 4 SCC 221. Therefore, it follows that the
recall of a bail order so procured is not a review barred by under

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73361 of 2024 dt.01-09-2026
16/25
Section 362 of the Cr.P.C., but a declaration that the order never
had a legal existence. The principle stands applied to bail
proceedings in Kusha Duruka (supra) , wherein the suppression
of material facts from the Court has been characterised as
actually playing fraud with the Court, attracting the maxim
suppressio veri, expressio falsi . The non-disclosure of criminal
antecedents is itself obtaining the bail by fraud stands settled by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Zeba Khan (supra) ,
wherein the bail granted by the High Court was cancelled upon
the finding that the accused had deliberately concealed his
criminal antecedents in successive bail applications, and it was
declared that every applicant seeking bail is under a solemn
obligation to make a fair, complete and candid disclosure of all
material facts, including his criminal antecedents, any
suppression or selective disclosure thereof amounts to an abuse
of the process of law. The same obligation had earlier been
emphasized by a three-Judge Bench in Kaushal Singh (supra) ,
wherein regular bail granted without consideration of the
antecedents of the accused was cancelled under Section 439(2)
of the Cr.P.C. upon the finding that the Court had been misled.
This Court has consistently taken the same view, particuly, in
Mohd. Rustam @ Minu vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported as

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73361 of 2024 dt.01-09-2026
17/25
2017 SCC OnLine Pat 3929 , wherein a Co-ordinate Bench,
following Papayya Sastry (supra) , cancelled the bail obtained
upon a false projection of clean antecedents by an accused
implicated in about seventeen criminal cases, and in Pramod
Kumar v. State of Bihar & Anr. (Criminal Miscellaneous
No.54892 of 2024, decided on 23.07.2026) , wherein regular bail
obtained upon a like false projection was cancelled, upon the
holding that the duty of candour flows not from the text of any
particular provision but from the character of bail as a
discretionary relief.
20. So far as the Courts subordinate to this Court
are concerned, the obligation has been given concrete shape by
the direction in Anil Baitha (supra), whereunder the
Investigating Officer or the APP is bound to furnish the
complete criminal antecedents of the accused to every Court
considering bail and the Court is bound to record the same
specifically in the order granting or refusing bail. The accused is
expressly not absolved of his own obligation to declare his
antecedents. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Brijmani
Devi vs. Pappu Kumar & Anr., reported as (2022) 4 SCC 497 ,
has held that the criminal antecedents of the accused form part
of the minimum content of the consideration of a prayer for bail.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73361 of 2024 dt.01-09-2026
18/25
The present case has a further dimension i.e. the offence under
Section 15(4) of the Act of 1962 attracts the limitation engrafted
in Section 16C thereof, whereunder no person accused of the
said offence shall, if in custody, be released on bail unless the
APP has been given an opportunity to oppose the application
and, where he opposes it, the Court is satisfied that there are
reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of
such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence
while on bail. The twin conditions are cumulative and
mandatory, being in pari materia with those in Section 37 of the
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and bail
granted without recording the satisfaction mandated thereby is
bail granted in ignorance of a statutory provision restricting the
power of the Court, liable to be cancelled on that ground alone,
as recognized in Himanshu Sharma (supra).
21. Tested on the anvil of the aforesaid
principles, the impugned order, in the considered opinion of this
Court, cannot be sustained, for more reasons than one. In the
first place, the falsity of the statements upon which it was
obtained stands established from the record and stands
uncontroverted. The declaration in paragraph no.3 of the bail
petition, that the petitioners have no criminal antecedents, is

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73361 of 2024 dt.01-09-2026
19/25
falsified by the nine cases of an identical nature, relating to the
theft of petroleum products from the I.O.C.L. pipeline,
enumerated hereinabove, which have not been specifically
denied. The assertion in ground no.(iv) thereof, that they were
not arrested at the spot and that nothing was recovered from
their possession, is also falsified by the F.I.R. and the seizure
lists, which record their apprehension, upon an attempt to flee,
from the field through which the pipeline passes, and the
recovery of the mobile phones and the digging implements from
their persons in the presence of the witnesses. No counter
affidavit controverting the certified copy of the bail petition has
been filed despite liberty being granted. Further, the learned
counsel for the opposite party nos.2 to 4 has not been able to
justify the statements made therein, and the learned APP has
candidly accepted that the said statements are contrary to the
record. The maxim suppressio veri, expressio falsi stands
squarely attracted, and the case falls within the law laid down by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Zeba Khan (supra),
Kaushal Singh (supra), Mohd. Rustam (supra) and Pramod
Kumar (supra) .
22. In the second place, the false projection so
made did not remain on paper, but entered the very

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73361 of 2024 dt.01-09-2026
20/25
consideration of the learned Court below. The impugned order
proceeds upon the footing that no stolen petrol or diesel was
recovered and the khanti is an implement commonly found in
every rural household. Further, that there is no material to
connect the accused with the theft of oil from the pipeline, and it
is conspicuously silent on the criminal antecedents of the
opposite party nos.2 to 4, for the simple reason that a false
declaration of clean antecedents had been made before it, and
the case diary, which would have exposed the falsehood, was, as
the order itself records, not before the Court. The materiality of
the suppression is demonstrated by the record of the learned
Court below itself, for on 14.05.2024, upon receipt of the case
diary, the very same Court rejected the bail applications of the
co-accused Manish Kumar and Md. Dablu, who had not even
been arrested from the place of occurrence, upon the express
findings noticed hereinabove, and the said order itself records
that bail had earlier been granted to the other accused for the
reason that the case diary had not been received and no criminal
antecedents had been shown. Further, the criminal antecedents
of the opposite party nos.2 to 4, who were apprehended at the
spot with the implements of the crime and carrying nine similar
cases, was not brought to the notice of the Court below while

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73361 of 2024 dt.01-09-2026
21/25
considering the prayer for bail. An order which proceeds upon
an erroneous premise induced by the accused himself is
perverse in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Sri Darshan (supra) and Deepak Yadav
(supra) .
23. In the third place, the impugned order suffers
from infirmities independent of the suppression. It neither refers
to Section 16C of the Act of 1962 nor records either of the twin
satisfactions mandated thereby, and proceeds as if the
application were one for bail in an ordinary case under the
general law, notwithstanding that the F.I.R. itself was registered
under Section 15(4) of the Act of 1962 and that the prosecution
opposed the prayer. Further, the impugned order has been
passed in complete disregard of the direction in Anil Baitha
(supra) , as the impugned order make no mention of the criminal
antecedents of the opposite party nos.2 to 4, which are of the
very same nature. Bail so granted, in disregard of a mandatory
statutory limitation and in ignorance of the antecedents which
form the minimum content of the consideration, is perverse and
unsustainable, as recognized in Himanshu Sharma (supra) and
Brijmani Devi (supra).
24. The submissions advanced on behalf of the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73361 of 2024 dt.01-09-2026
22/25
opposite party nos.2 to 4, founded upon Dolat Ram (supra) and
Abdul Basit (supra) , and upon the absence of any misuse of the
liberty after release, proceed upon a misconception of the nature
of the present application. Each of the said decisions concerns
the first limb of the jurisprudence, namely, the cancellation of a
validly granted bail for supervening misconduct, whereas the
present application invokes the second limb, namely, the power
of this Court to annul an order obtained by false statements and
suppression, and which otherwise is perverse. The exercise of
this jurisdiction, as held in Puran (supra), Neeru Yadav
(supra), Vipan Kumar Dhir (supra) and Sri Darshan (supra) ,
does not require any supervening circumstance to be shown.
The decision in Himanshu Sharma (supra) , far from advancing
the case of the opposite party nos.2 to 4, furnishes the very
charter for the exercise of the power invoked herein. The
reliance upon Prabhakar Tewari (supra) is equally
misconceived, for the vice of the impugned order is not that it
granted bail despite the pendency of the nine similar cases, but
that it proceeded upon the false premise that no such cases
existed, whereby the antecedents were left wholly out of
consideration. The Court, and the Court alone, was entitled to
weigh those antecedents along with the gravity of the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73361 of 2024 dt.01-09-2026
23/25
accusation, and the accused cannot arrogate to himself the
function of deciding which of his antecedents may safely be
withheld. The pleas that no stolen petroleum was recovered and
that the allegation is of an attempt alone are matters of defence,
to be tested at the trial, and cannot breathe validity into an order
procured by falsehood, for no party may be permitted to derive
advantage from his own wrong.
25. For the foregoing reasons, and bearing in
mind that the allegation is of an organized operation of pilferage
of petroleum products from a live pipeline, an activity which
causes enormous loss to the public exchequer and exposes the
life and property of the citizens residing in the vicinity of the
pipeline to the gravest peril, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the impugned order dated 13.03.2024 stands
vitiated at its very inception, having been obtained by the
opposite party nos.2 to 4 upon a false declaration of clean
antecedents and upon false statements regarding their arrest and
the recoveries, which were relied upon by the learned Court
below. The impugned order is, in any event, perverse and
unsustainable in law, having been passed in complete ignorance
of the criminal antecedents of the opposite party nos.2 to 4, and
in disregard of the direction in Anil Baitha (supra) and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73361 of 2024 dt.01-09-2026
24/25
pertinently, without recording the mandatory satisfaction under
Section 16C of the Act of 1962. The impugned order, therefore,
cannot be sustained, and the bail granted thereunder is liable to
be cancelled.
26. In the result, the present application is
allowed. The impugned order dated 13.03.2024 passed by the
Additional District & Sessions Judge-I, Barh (Patna) in Bail
Petition No.85 of 2024, in connection with Athmalgola P.S.
Case No.45 of 2024, enlarging the opposite party nos.2 to 4,
namely, Sudarshan Lal, Aryan Raj and Pramod Kumar @
Pramod, on bail, is set aside. Consequently, the bail granted to
the opposite party nos.2 to 4 is hereby cancelled, and the bail
bonds furnished by them also stand cancelled. Since the
opposite party nos.2 to 4 are already in judicial custody in
connection with another case, no direction for their surrender is
required. It is, however, made clear that, consequent upon the
cancellation of their bail bonds, the opposite party nos.2 to 4
shall not be released in connection with Athmalgola P.S. Case
No.45 of 2024 except upon a fresh order passed in accordance
with law.
27. The learned Trial Court is directed to
proceed with the trial of Athmalgola P.S. Case No.45 of 2024

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73361 of 2024 dt.01-09-2026
25/25
and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible, without
being influenced by any observation made herein.
28. It is made abundantly clear that the
observations made hereinabove are confined to the
consideration of the present application and shall not be
construed as an expression of any opinion on the merits of the
case, which shall be decided by the learned Trial Court
uninfluenced by the same.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
pawan/-
AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R.
CAV DATE 07.08.2026
Uploading Date 03.09.2026
Transmission Date 03.09.2026