Bail cancelled after accused concealed murder case, Arms Act conviction and misrepresented injuries; post-release misconduct not required for annulment

The petitioner-informant filed an application under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking cancellation of the regular bail granted to opposite party no. 2, Madhes Kumar @ Ankit @ Madhes Yadav, in Khiri More P.S. Case No. 6 of 2024, involving offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 325, 308 and 307 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

The prosecution alleged that the opposite party no. 2, along with an armed assembly, assaulted the informant’s side and fired pistols, causing gunshot injuries to three persons. Three empty cartridges and two live cartridges were recovered from the place of occurrence.

The opposite party no. 2 was granted bail by a Coordinate Bench on 20 June 2024. In his bail application, he disclosed only Sahar P.S. Case No. 184 of 2021 under the Arms Act and claimed fair antecedents, while also asserting that the injuries were not grievous.

The petitioner subsequently demonstrated that the accused was involved in five criminal cases, including a murder case, and had already been convicted in the Arms Act case, with an appeal pending.

The counter-affidavit admitted the five cases but attributed their non-disclosure to the lack of knowledge of the accused’s pairvikar and tendered an apology.

The injury reports from AIIMS, Patna, indicated grievous penetrating gunshot injuries, contrary to the representation made in the bail petition.

Whether the regular bail granted to the opposite party no. 2 was liable to be annulled under Section 439(2) CrPC because it had been obtained by suppressing material criminal antecedents and misrepresenting the nature of the injuries?

Whether cancellation or annulment of bail obtained by fraud or misrepresentation requires proof of subsequent misuse of liberty or any supervening circumstance?

Whether the explanation that the non-disclosure resulted from the mistake or ignorance of the pairvikar could excuse the accused’s failure to disclose his antecedents?

The Court applied Section 439(2) CrPC, which empowers the High Court to direct that a person released on bail be arrested and committed to custody.

It distinguished ordinary cancellation of bail for post-release misconduct or supervening circumstances from annulment of a bail order that was illegal, perverse, or procured by suppression of material facts.

Relying on Deepak Yadav v. State of U.P., Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., Puran v. Rambilas, Ajwar v. Waseem, and State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan, the Court held that bail may be set aside where the criminal antecedents or other relevant material were ignored or where the order proceeded on an erroneous premise.

Under S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Government of A.P., and Kusha Duruka v. State of Odisha, an order obtained by fraud or suppression of material facts is a nullity and confers no enforceable right.

The Court further relied on Kaushal Singh v. State of Rajasthan, Rajni v. State of Punjab, and Zeba Khan v. State of U.P. for the principle that a bail applicant must make a complete, candid disclosure of all criminal antecedents.

Himanshu Sharma v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Suraj Mahananda v. State of West Bengal were relied upon to affirm that bail can be cancelled where it was procured by misrepresentation or wrong facts, even by a Coordinate Bench.

The Court found that suppression was admitted because the opposite party no. 2 disclosed only one criminal case while concealing four others, including a murder case, and failed to disclose that he had been convicted in the disclosed Arms Act case and was pursuing an appeal.

The suppression was material rather than accidental because the bail order expressly recorded the submission that the accused had clean antecedents and relied upon that representation while granting bail.

The Court also found that the assertion that the injuries were simple was inconsistent with the AIIMS reports describing grievous penetrating gunshot injuries, including injuries to vital parts of the body.

The explanation blaming the pairvikar was rejected because the accused personally knew of the criminal cases and the conviction against him; an apology could not cure the deception or validate the benefit obtained from it.

The subsequent acquittal in one case was irrelevant because the duty of disclosure had to be assessed as on the date of the bail application.

Since the challenge concerned a bail order procured by fraud, not ordinary post-release misconduct, the accused’s subsequent compliance with bail conditions did not prevent annulment.

The application under Section 439(2) CrPC was allowed, the bail order was cancelled, and the bail bonds of Madhes Kumar @ Ankit @ Madhes Yadav were forfeited/cancelled.

He was directed to surrender before the trial court within three weeks, failing which the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna, was directed to take steps to secure his custody.

The trial court was directed to conclude the trial expeditiously, uninfluenced by the observations made in the bail-cancellation proceedings.