Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 989 (PAT)

Mitu Mahto v. State Of Bihar

2004-09-18

V.N.SINHA

body2004
Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner is accused in Complaint Case No. 908C of 2002 filed by the Registrar General of the High Court of Judicature at Patna in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna for the offence under Sections 193, 196 and 200 of the Penal Code as it is alleged thereunder that the petitioner fraudulently suppressed relevant informations from this court as was required to be furnished in terms of the Standing Order No. 6 of 86 issued under the Rules of the Patna High Court and proceeded to file on 26.3.2001 Cr. Misc. No. 8921 of 2001 for grant of bail under Sections 439 and 440 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Hilsa P.S. Case No. 226 of 2000 registered for offence under Sections 341, 342, 376(2)(g) and 120B of the Indian Penal Code for which purpose he had already filed Cr. Misc. No. 33638 of 2000. 3. It so happened that the petitioner alongwith others became accused in connection with Hilsa P.S. Case No. 226 of 2000 registered for the aforesaid offence alleging that this petitioner alongwith two others committed rape on the person of the informant, Sanjoga Devi. The attempt of the petitioner for securing bail in the said case was rejected upto the Sessions Court and thereafter he filed Cr. Misc. No. 33638 of 2000 under Sections 439 and 440 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail in that case in this Court. While that application remained pending, petitioner engaged another counsel and filed another Cr. Misc. No. 8921 of 2001 on 26.3. 2001 praying for bail in that very case again. In the subsequent application petitioner fraudulently suppressed the information that he has already filed bail application for grant of bail in the said Hilsa P.S. Case No. 226 of 2000 vide Cr. Misc. No. 33638 of 2000. Said information was required to be given in the subsequent bail application, bearing Cr. Misc. No. 8921 of 2001 as per Standing Order No. 6 of 86 issued under the Rules of the Patna High Court. Failure to include the said information in the subsequent bail application made out offence of giving/ using false evidence punishable under Sections 193, 196 and 200 of the Penal Code. Misc. No. 8921 of 2001 as per Standing Order No. 6 of 86 issued under the Rules of the Patna High Court. Failure to include the said information in the subsequent bail application made out offence of giving/ using false evidence punishable under Sections 193, 196 and 200 of the Penal Code. When the aforesaid suppression of relevant fact in judicial proceeding came to the notice of this Court then this Court issued notice to the petitioner as also to his Pairvikar and after hearing them, passed order dated 6.9.2001 holding as follows: "However, the petitioner, Mitu Mahto has not chosen to file a show cause despite service of notice on him. Prima facie, it was this petitioner who had signed two vakalatnamas and on his behalf two counsel were engaged in two cases. Therefore, his implication, prima facie, appears to have been established. In the aforesaid circumstances, the Registrar General of this Court is directed to file a complaint on behalf of the court in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna against the petitioner Mitu Mahto, for having got filed an application with an affidavit suppressing vital facts from the Court." 4. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction of this Court, instant complaint has been filed and the petitioner has applied for grant of bail and that is how this petition is before me. 5. During hearing of the case learned counsel submitted that as the petitioner has since been acquitted of the charge under Section 376 and other Sections of the Penal Code under the judgment dated 30.4.2003 passed in Sessions Trial No. 592 of 2001 (Annexure 3). He should be set at liberty in the present case also as the offence under Sections 193, 196 and 200 of the Penal Code are bailable and in a bailable offence in terms of Section 436 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner has a right to be released on bail. 6. I had occasion to peruse the judgment whereunder the petitioner has been acquitted of the charge under Section 376 and other minor Sections of the Penal Code. 6. I had occasion to peruse the judgment whereunder the petitioner has been acquitted of the charge under Section 376 and other minor Sections of the Penal Code. Perusal of the said judgment makes an interesting reading as therefrom it appears that the, prosecutrix came to the witness box and submitted that she was raped but as the night was dark, she had no occasion to identify the culprits and on such evidence of the prosecutrix the trial court under judgment dated 30.4.2003, Annexure-3 was constrained to acquit the petitioner and others. Reading the judgment in between the lines makes it obvious that a sorry state of affairs is prevailing in the society as the prosecutrix who had named three persons including this petitioner and two others in the First Information Report as those who ravaged her one by one during the night in the witness box has chosen to state that she could not identify her three tormenters because of the darkness. 6. Before the aforesaid judgment acquitting the petitioner was recorded, the petitioner moved this Court twice for release on bail and in the process withheld information regarding filing of the earlier petition and thereby committed offence of giving/using false evidence in the judicial proceedings before the High Court and thereby became liable for prosecution for the offence under Sections 193, 196 and 200 of the Penal Code on the basis of complaint filed by the Registrar General of this Court, bearing Complaint Case No. 908C of 2002 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna. 7. This application has been filed for grant of bail in the said complaint case as the offences for which petitioner has now been charged is bailable. This Court has no option, but to direct for his release on furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court, but at the same time this Court takes notice of the fact that petitioner is a person, who has not only secured his acquittal from the trial court by over reaching the process of the Court, but has also soiled the proceedings taken in this Court when he withheld certain relevant information from this Court in his subsequent bail application and thereby threatened the very sanctity of the proceedings taken in this Court. By withholding the information, he has used and given false evidence before this Court and thereby not only threatened the sanctity of judicial proceeding in the highest Court of the State but also established that he is beyond the long arms of this Court as this Court has no option but to release him on furnishing bail bonds, as the Legislature has not yet considered the desirability of making the aforesaid offences non-bailable. 8. Accordingly, I have no option, but to direct that the petitioner, Mitu Mahto be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna in Complaint Case No. 908C of 2002. 9. The trial court, however, is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The release of the petitioner shall be subject to the condition that he shall appear in the court below on each and every date so fixed by the trial court unless exempted by the court for any particular date. 10. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Secretary Law Commission of India and State Law Commission, Bihar so as to consider the desirability to make offence under Sections 193, 196 and 200 of the Penal Code as non-bailable and to recommend accordingly.