Patna High Court Cancels Anticipatory Bail Granted 8 Years Ago, Says False Statement On Oath Cannot Be Excused

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sandeep Kumar observed that a person seeking discretionary relief must make a full, fair and candid disclosure of all material facts and cannot shift the responsibility of detecting false statements onto the Court.

The Court was hearing an application under Section 439(2) CrPC seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to Amit Kumar alias Amit Kumar Sahni on December 4, 2018, in a case involving allegations of cheating, forgery and criminal conspiracy arising from a land transaction.

The dispute originated from a complaint filed by the accused's uncle, who alleged that he had entrusted his nephew with the sale of ancestral land in Hajipur. According to the complainant, the accused agreed to purchase a portion of the property himself, arrange other purchasers and remit the total consideration of Rs.49.73 lakh through banking channels. The complainant alleged that four sale deeds were executed on September 14, 2017, but he never received the consideration. He further alleged that the sale deeds falsely recorded that the entire consideration had already been paid.

The accused initially approached the Sessions Court for anticipatory bail, which was rejected in August 2018. He subsequently approached the High Court and obtained anticipatory bail in December 2018. However, the complainant sought cancellation of bail on the ground that the accused had falsely stated on oath that he was merely an identifier of the sale deed and was neither its vendor nor purchaser.

The complainant pointed out that the accused was himself the purchaser of the largest portion of the disputed land, measuring 32.75 decimals, under a registered sale deed for Rs.29.48 lakh. The High Court found that the false statement was established by documentary evidence. It observed that a person could not claim ignorance of a registered sale deed executed in his own favour for Rs.29.48 lakh.

Opposing cancellation, the accused argued that the correct facts were already disclosed in the FIR annexed to his bail application. He further contended that bail could not be cancelled in the absence of subsequent misconduct, misuse of liberty or intimidation of witnesses. Rejecting the argument that annexing the FIR amounted to sufficient disclosure, the Court observed:

“The submission that there was no suppression of material facts, inasmuch as the copy of the FIR annexed with the petition itself disclosed the correct facts and the learned Coordinate Bench had recorded that it had perused the materials on record, does not commend itself to this Court. It is well settled that a person seeking discretionary relief from a Court is required to make a full, fair and candid disclosure of all material facts, as the Court proceeds on the faith and representation made in the pleadings and sworn statements placed before it. A party who makes a positive assertion on oath contrary to the contents of the documents annexed by him cannot be permitted to contend that it was for the Court to discover the falsity of such assertion.”

The Court further distinguished between cancellation of bail on account of subsequent misconduct and setting aside a bail order obtained through fraud or misrepresentation. It explained that while cancellation based on subsequent conduct ordinarily requires cogent and overwhelming circumstances, an order obtained through a false statement of material fact suffers from a defect existing at its inception. Such an order is a nullity, and its recall does not amount to reviewing the earlier exercise of judicial discretion.

Significantly, the Court acknowledged that anticipatory bail had been granted nearly eight years earlier and that the cancellation application had remained pending since April 2019 for reasons attributable to neither party. It also noted that no subsequent misuse of liberty had been alleged against the accused. However, the Bench held that these circumstances could not cure the original defect in the bail order. The Court observed:

“This Court is conscious that the impugned order was passed nearly eight years ago and the present application has remained pending since April, 2019, for reasons attributable to neither party, and that no misuse of the liberty is alleged. These are circumstances which would weigh with a Court considering cancellation for supervening misconduct, but they arose after, and by reason of, the grant, and cannot breathe validity into an order procured by falsehood at its inception…”

The Court accordingly concluded that the anticipatory bail order dated December 4, 2018 had been procured through a knowingly false statement on oath concerning the accused's role in the land transaction.

Allowing the application, the High Court recalled and set aside the earlier anticipatory bail order, cancelled the bail granted to Amit Kumar alias Amit Kumar Sahni and cancelled the bail bonds furnished by him.

Appearance:

For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajeev Ranjan, Advocate; Mr. Uday Pratap Singh, Advocate

For the State: Mr. Manoj Kumar, APP

For the Opposite Party No. 02: Mr. Subodh Prasad, Advocate; Ms. Madhu Prasad, Advocate