False Representation Of Superior Court Order Is Among Gravest Species Of Fraud: Patna High Court Cancels Bail

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sandeep Kumar was hearing a petition filed under Section 483(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking cancellation of the regular bail granted to Amit Kumar by the Additional Sessions Judge-XIX, Gaya, vide order dated 15.01.2025 in Sessions Trial No. 848 of 2024, arising out of Bodhgaya P.S. Case No. 105 of 2022.

The case relates to the death of Rinki Kumari, who was married to Chandan Kumar in 2018. The prosecution alleged that she was subjected to dowry-related harassment by her husband and in-laws. On 22.02.2022, her father received information that she had died by hanging at her matrimonial home. The prosecution alleged that she had been killed over a demand for dowry and that her body was thereafter hanged to make the death appear to be a suicide.

Amit Kumar's prayer for bail was initially rejected by the Additional District & Sessions Judge-II, Gaya, on 06.07.2024. The Court found sufficient incriminating material against him, including call detail records and material contained in paragraph 80 of the case diary. Amit Kumar thereafter approached the High Court. A Coordinate Bench, by order dated 03.10.2024 in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 58263 of 2024, rejected his prayer for bail on merits.

The High Court noted that this order was a rejection simpliciter. It contained no observation, direction or liberty, express or implied, permitting Amit Kumar to renew his bail application before the Sessions Court after cognizance and commitment of the case.

However, Amit Kumar subsequently moved the Sessions Court for bail. In paragraph 2 of his bail application, he represented that, according to the High Court's order dated 03.10.2024, his bail application could be allowed by the Court of Session after cognizance and commitment of the case. The Sessions Court accepted this submission and granted him bail on 15.01.2025.

The petitioner then approached the High Court seeking cancellation of the bail, contending that the order had been obtained through a false representation of the earlier High Court order and that the Sessions Court had granted bail on the same material which had already been considered and rejected by the High Court. The State was unable to dispute that the order dated 03.10.2024 contained no such liberty or direction.

The High Court found that the bail order was “vitiated by the clear misrepresentation upon which it was obtained”. It noted that the Sessions Court itself had recorded the representation that the High Court had permitted a fresh bail application after cognizance and commitment, whereas the earlier order contained no such observation.

The Court held that the representation was false “on the very face of the record” and that its falsity was within the special knowledge of Amit Kumar, who had himself been the applicant in the earlier proceedings before the High Court. Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, reported as (1994) 1 SCC 1, the Court observed that an order obtained by withholding or misrepresenting a material fact is an order obtained by fraud, and that fraud vitiates judicial acts. The Bench made a strong observation on the nature of the misrepresentation:

“A false representation as to the purport of an order of the superior Court, made to the subordinate Court in order to procure bail, is, in the considered opinion of this Court, among the gravest species of such fraud.”

The Court explained that such conduct goes beyond merely withholding a material fact. It effectively “puts into the mouth of this Court words which this Court never uttered” and thereby procures from the subordinate court, in the supposed name of the High Court, relief which the High Court itself had declined. The Court therefore held that “an order so procured is vitiated at its very inception.”

The Bench also found a separate violation of judicial discipline. A Coordinate Bench of the High Court had rejected Amit Kumar's bail application on merits only three months before the Sessions Court granted him bail. Yet, the Sessions Court did not identify any change in circumstances between 03.10.2024 and 15.01.2025 which could justify a different conclusion. The High Court held that a subordinate court cannot, on an unchanged record, re-evaluate the same material and grant relief which a superior court has already declined.

The Court observed that permitting such a course would effectively reduce the superior court's rejection of bail “to a dead letter” and encourage unsuccessful applicants to “shop for a more favourable forum below”. The Bench further rejected the argument that the bail should not be cancelled because Amit Kumar had not subsequently misused the liberty granted to him. It distinguished between two situations: cancellation of a validly granted bail because of subsequent misconduct, and annulment of a bail order which was itself obtained through misrepresentation or was legally unsustainable. In the latter situation, the Court held, the subsequent conduct of the accused is not determinative. The issue is whether the bail order itself was validly obtained and sustainable in law.

The Court accordingly allowed the petition and set aside the order dated 15.01.2025 granting bail to Amit Kumar. His bail bonds were cancelled and he was directed to surrender before the trial court within three weeks.

The Court further directed that, if he failed to surrender within that period, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gaya, should take all necessary steps in accordance with law to secure his arrest.

Appearance:

For the Petitioner: Mr. Shivendra Prasad, Advocate

For the State: Mr. Tarun Prasad Mandal, APP

For the Opposite Party No. 2: Mr. Rabindra Kumar Priyadarshi, Advocate