Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 166 (PAT)

Mohan Singh v. State Of Bihar

2008-01-24

SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH

body2008
Judgment 1. Heard Mr. Nawal Kishore Singh, counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Tara Kant Jha, learned Sr. Counsel appearing as amicus curiae and Mr. Shraddhanand Paswan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 2. 2. The petitioner prays for cancellation of the bail granted to Opposite Party No. 2 by this court by order dated 26.7.2007 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 29908 of 2007 on the ground that Opposite party no. 2 suppressed the fact that he had earlier moved this court for bail and as well also on the ground that a forged and absolutely made up impugned order dated 4.1.2007 of A.D.J.-I, Begusarai has been filed in Cr. Misc. No. 29908 of 2007 for securing bail of Opposite Party No. 2 Vijay Kumar Mandal. 3. The fact reveals a very disturbing aspect as some nefarious elements are at work to tarnish the very institution of justice, which over the years all associated with it has strive to keep aloft its fair name and prestige. 4. The facts of the case in short is that one Vijay Kumar Mandal, Opposite Party No. 2, filed a bail application bearing Cr. Misc. No. 14692 of 2007 in Begusarai Mufassail P.S. Case No. 315 of 2006 dated 14.10.2006 under Section 364A of the Penal Code. The bail application was dismissed vide order dated 24.4.2007 passed analogous with Criminal Misc. No. 14244 of 2007. Thereafter the opposite party no. 2 filed another Cr.Misc. No. 29908 of 2007 on 9.7.2007, suppressing the fact that he had earlier moved this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 14692 of 2007. The bail application was filed through one Mr. Vinod Kumar, Advocate mentioning in the Vakalatnama his sit of practice in the Hon ble High Court at Table No. 3 (having some overwriting), Main Hall, Advocate Association. This court by order dated 26.7.2007 granted bail to the opposite party no. 2. 5. Thereafter the opposite party no. 2 filed another bail application arising out of same Begusarai Mufassil P.S. Case No. 315 of 2006 on 27.7.2007 before this court bearing Cr. Misc. No. 34389 of 2007 which was dismissed as withdrawn on 28.8.2007. 6. The bail application bearing Cr. Misc. No. 14692 of 2007 and Cr. Misc. No. 34389 of 2007 was filed by one Raghunandan Kumar Singh, Advocate. All the three bail applications namely Cr. Misc. No. 14692 of 2007 filed on 28.3.2007 and Cr. Misc. No. 34389 of 2007 which was dismissed as withdrawn on 28.8.2007. 6. The bail application bearing Cr. Misc. No. 14692 of 2007 and Cr. Misc. No. 34389 of 2007 was filed by one Raghunandan Kumar Singh, Advocate. All the three bail applications namely Cr. Misc. No. 14692 of 2007 filed on 28.3.2007 and Cr. Misc. No. 29908 of 2007 filed on 9.7.2007 and Cr. Misc. No. 34389 of 2007 filed on 27.7.2007 arose from the same impugned order dated 4.1.2007 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Begusarai in B.A. No. 2130 of 2006 in respect of this opposite party no. 2. 7. It is strange and disturbing to note that the certified copy of the same bail order of learned A.D.J.-I, Begusarai in B.A. No. 2130 of 2006 dated 4.1.2007 annexed in Cr. Misc. No. 29908 of 2007, in which bail of the opposite party no. 2 was allowed, does not contain any material allegations save and except that his name figured in the confessional statement whereas certified copy of the same order annexed in the other two bail applications contain full allegations against the opposite party no. 2. These facts amply show that the certified copy of the order dated 4.1.2007 in B.A. No. 2130 of 2006 annexed in Cr. Misc. No. 29908 of 2007 is a forged one and has been deliberately brought into existence to secure the bail of the accused. 8. It further appears that Opposite Party No. 2 suppressed the fact in Cr.Misc. No. 29908 of 2007 that he has earlier moved this court for bail in Cr. Misc. No. 14692 of 2007 which was rejected on 24.4.2007. 9. It further appears that misdemeanour is not restricted to this only but even to escape scrutiny there is interpolation in respect of P.S. Case number in the F.I.R. as well as in paragraph 1 and prayer portion of the bail application bearing Cr. Misc. No. 29908 of 2007. On bare perusal of copy of the F.I.R. it would appear that Begusarai Mufassil P.S. Case No. 315 of 2006 has been tampered and manoeuvered to appear as Begusarai Mufassil P.S. Case No. 215 of 2006. Further more in the certified copy of the impugned order the P.S. Case Number has been shown as Begusarai Mufassil P.S.Case No. 215 of 2006 in place of Begusarai Mufassil P.S. Case No. 315 of 2006. Further more in the certified copy of the impugned order the P.S. Case Number has been shown as Begusarai Mufassil P.S.Case No. 215 of 2006 in place of Begusarai Mufassil P.S. Case No. 315 of 2006. When the Stamp Reporter of this court pointed out that the P.S. Case mentioned in the bail petition does not tally with the certified copy of the impugned order, the P.S. Case number in paragraph 1 has been altered to Mufassil P.S. Case No. 215 of 2006 from Mufassil P.S. Case No. 315 of 2006 and in prayer portion and thereafter again it appears that half curve below the numerical no. 2 has been made to again make it appear as 315 of 2006. It would appear from prayer portion of the bail application that the Police Case finally emerging has been written as Begusarai Mufassil P.S. Case No. 315 of 2006. This is not all. Even in the certified copy of the impugned order annexed to Cr. Misc. No. 29908 of 2007 does not bear the certification that it is the certified copy of the original order. 10. The person sworn affidavit in all the three cases filed by Opposite Party No. 2 is one Yogendra Prasad Singh son of Late Prayag Narayan, resident of Village Khajpura, B/45, Nandan Home, P.S. Gardanibagh, District Patna. It appears that two bail applications namely Cr. Misc. No. 14692 of 2007 and Cr.Misc. No. 34389 of 2007 the last one filed on 27.7.2007 by Shri Raghunandan Kumar Singh, Advocate do not contain any illegality and-they are in order save and except that it does not mention about filing of the previous bail application being Cr. Misc. No. 29908 of 2007 filed earlier on 9.7.2007. However, it has mentioned about the disposal of the earlier bail application bearing Cr. Misc. No. 14692 of 2007. It appears that the lapse could be bona fide as he might not have been made aware of the filing of Cr. Misc. No. 29908 of 2007 in which opposite party no. 2 has committed the fraud. 11. Shri Tara Kant Jha, learned Sr. Counsel who was also present in court willingly offered to appear as Amicus Curiae as the matter concerns the interest of the institution as someone was trying to play fraud upon the institution. Misc. No. 29908 of 2007 in which opposite party no. 2 has committed the fraud. 11. Shri Tara Kant Jha, learned Sr. Counsel who was also present in court willingly offered to appear as Amicus Curiae as the matter concerns the interest of the institution as someone was trying to play fraud upon the institution. He submits that no leniency should be adopted in such matter and notice is to be issued to the person who sworn affidavit so that guilty may be punished. He also suggests that a copy of the petition be served on Mr. Vinod Kumar, Advocate who appeared in Cr. Misc. No. 29908 of 2007 in which the opposite party no. 2 by playing fraud upon the court secured bail. He further suggests that thereafter an enquiry may be ordered after hearing the parties. 12. Mr. Shraddhanand Paswan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Opposite Party No. 2 who had not earlier appeared in the case stated that he will also assist the court in arriving at the truth. 13. In such circumstances, this court finds that the Opposite Party No. 2 Vijay Kumar Mandal should not allowed to remain at large even for a single moment and as such his bail is cancelled. The learned Magistrate or the court in seisin of the case will take all coercive steps for his arrest. The Superintendent of Police and the District Administration, Begusarai will also in aid of this order will take steps to apprehend Opposite Party No. 2 Vijay Kumar Mandal. 14. The residence of Opposite party no. 2 Vijay Kumar Mandal as mentioned in the petition is in the district of Deoghar. In this situation, this court solicits that the Superintendent of Police and the District Magistrate, Deoghar will also take steps for nabbing the Opposite party no. 2 pursuant to this order. 15. Let notice be issued to Mr. Yogendra Prasad who sworn affidavit in Cr. Misc. No. 29908 of 2007 as well as in Cr. Misc. No. 14692 of 2007 and Cr. Misc. No. 34389 of 2007 to show cause as to why punitive action may not be taken against him for playing fraud upon the court. The Registry of this court is directed to serve notice upon Mr. Yogendra Prasad within two weeks. He must submit his show cause within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice. 16. Misc. No. 34389 of 2007 to show cause as to why punitive action may not be taken against him for playing fraud upon the court. The Registry of this court is directed to serve notice upon Mr. Yogendra Prasad within two weeks. He must submit his show cause within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner would serve a copy of cancellation of bail application on Mr. Vinod Kumar, Advocate alongwith a copy of this order for filing his response as his client Opposite Party No. 2 Vijay Kumar Mandal by playing fraud upon the court has secured bail. The response should be made within 15 days from the date of receipt of cancellation of bail application upon him. 17. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Superintendent of Police and District Magistrate of Begusarai and Deoghar as well as Home Secretary, Jharkhand and Director General of Police, Jharkhand for nabbing opposite party no. 2 Vijay Kumar Mandal. 18. Put up this case for Orders after five weeks.