Patna High Court cancels anticipatory bail after man falsely claimed he was only a witness, not a buyer, in the land-sale case

The petitioner sought cancellation of Amit Kumar’s anticipatory bail in a case alleging fraud in the execution of four sale deeds.

In his anticipatory-bail petition, Amit stated on oath that he was neither vendor nor vendee and was only a witness/identifier.

However, registered Sale Deed No. 5342 showed that he was the purchaser of 32.75 decimals—the largest parcel—of the land in dispute.

The Court granted anticipatory bail on 4 December 2018, recording the submission that Amit was only an identifier.

Whether the anticipatory-bail order was procured through a false statement and suppression of a material fact, warranting its annulment and cancellation without proof of post-grant misconduct.

Whether the disclosure of the prosecution case in the FIR annexed to the bail petition, and the absence of alleged misuse of bail, prevented cancellation.

Under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, bail may be cancelled for supervening misconduct, such as misuse of liberty, or an order granting bail may be annulled where it is legally infirm, perverse, or procured by material misrepresentation; these are distinct grounds and annulment does not require proof of subsequent misconduct.

An order obtained by fraud on the court is a nullity and may be recalled; a party seeking discretionary relief must make full and candid disclosure.

Section 362 Cr.P.C. does not bar recall where the order is challenged as having been procured by fraud, rather than reviewed on its merits.

Amit’s statement that he was neither vendor nor vendee was demonstrably false: his own registered deed named him as purchaser of the largest parcel, and the complaint, FIR, and Sessions Court order also referred to his proposed purchase.

His role as principal purchaser was material to the allegations, and describing himself only as an identifier presented a substantially different account of his involvement.

The bail order recorded the identifier submission as a basis for considering the application, while Amit’s selective annexure of another deed reinforced the misrepresentation.

The FIR’s disclosure of the underlying allegations did not excuse a positive sworn assertion contradicting the record; the applicant could not shift to the Court the burden of detecting that contradiction.

Because the challenge concerned fraud at the time bail was granted, the absence of subsequent misuse and the passage of time did not cure the defect.

It confined its observations to the cancellation application and left the merits of the prosecution, including the genuineness of the deeds and payment of consideration, for the trial court.

The Court strongly disapproved of the conduct but declined, for the present, to initiate proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C.

A copy of the judgment was directed to be communicated to the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Vaishali.