Bail cancelled after accused suppressed criminal cases; Patna HC flags judge’s haste and recommends action

The petitioner-informant sought cancellation of the regular bail granted to opposite party no. 2, Dharmendra Kumar, under Section 439(2) CrPC in Digha P.S. Case No. 340 of 2024, registered under Sections 447, 147, 148, 149, 341, 323 and 307 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

The prosecution alleged that, on 6 June 2024, Dharmendra Kumar and four co-accused persons damaged the victim’s cow-shed and opened fire at Mukesh Kumar @ Gopi; specifically, Dharmendra allegedly fired twice, the first shot being aimed at the victim’s temple and the second striking his left leg.

The injury report recorded a grievous injury, including a foreign body in the region of the fibula on X-ray.

Dharmendra was arrested on 7 June 2024 and was granted regular bail by the Additional Sessions Judge-XIV, Patna, on 22 July 2024.

In his bail petition, he disclosed only two criminal antecedents, although the case diary recorded Digha P.S. Case No. 519 of 2019 and the record also disclosed Rajeev Nagar P.S. Case No. 786 of 2023.

1. Whether the regular bail granted to Dharmendra Kumar was liable to be annulled under Section 439(2) CrPC because it was obtained through incomplete or suppressed disclosure of his criminal antecedents.

2. Whether the bail order was illegal, perverse, or based on irrelevant considerations by ignoring the grievous firearm injury, the specific allegation of firing, and the gravity of the offence.

3. Whether the subsequent enlargement of the co-accused on bail or anticipatory bail entitled Dharmendra Kumar to relief on the principle of parity.

4. Whether the manner and speed of disposal of the bail petition disclosed serious procedural irregularity warranting interference.

The Court applied Section 439(2) CrPC, distinguishing between cancellation of a validly granted bail on account of post-grant misconduct or supervening circumstances and annulment of a bail order that was illegal, perverse, or obtained by fraud.

Under State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan, Deepak Yadav v. State of U.P., Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., Puran v. Rambilas, Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar and Ajwar v. Waseem, a superior court may set aside bail where the granting court ignores material evidence, past criminal conduct, the gravity of the offence, or relies on irrelevant considerations.

The Court further held, relying on Kusha Duruka v. State of Odisha, Kaushal Singh v. State of Rajasthan, A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Government of A.P. and S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, that suppression or concealment of material facts amounts to fraud on the court and vitiates the order obtained thereby.

Criminal antecedents are a material consideration in bail adjudication, particularly in assessing the likelihood of repetition of offences, witness intimidation, or non-compliance with the process of law.

For an offence under Section 307 IPC, actual injury to a vital body part is unnecessary; the intention or knowledge accompanying the act is determinative, as recognised in State of M.P. v. Saleem @ Chamaru.

Parity is not available where the accused has a substantially graver or distinct role, as held in Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana Koli and Neeru Yadav.

The Court found that Dharmendra had disclosed only two antecedents despite the existence of at least two additional cases, including a charge-sheeted case recorded in the case diary.

The trial court neither called for an antecedent report nor considered the complete criminal history; its reference to “about two cases” demonstrated that it proceeded on an incomplete factual basis.

The bail order also misread the medical material: although it stated that no firearm injury was apparent, the injury report recorded a gunshot case, a foreign body near the fibula, and a grievous injury.

The absence of injury to a vital part was legally irrelevant because the first shot was allegedly aimed at the temple and Section 307 IPC does not require a successful injury to a vital organ.

The case-and-counter-case circumstance, land dispute, and absence of firing in the CCTV footage could not outweigh the direct allegation and medical corroboration at the bail stage.

The Court further considered the selective expedition in deciding Dharmendra’s bail on 22 July 2024, despite the co-accused’s earlier applications awaiting the same case diary, and held that this procedural irregularity reinforced the conclusion that the discretion had not been exercised judicially.

Finally, parity was rejected because the co-accused were granted relief on the express basis that the specific firing allegation was against Dharmendra.

The application under Section 439(2) CrPC was allowed; the impugned bail order was set aside, Dharmendra Kumar’s bail was cancelled, and his bail bonds stood cancelled.

He was directed to surrender before the court below within three weeks, failing which the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna, was directed to secure his arrest.

The trial court was directed to conclude the trial expeditiously and uninfluenced by the observations made in the judgment.

A copy of the judgment and records was also directed to be placed before the Acting Chief Justice for consideration of appropriate action concerning the Additional Sessions Judge-XIV, Patna, in view of the irregularities noted by the Court.