JUDGMENT : S. K. SAHOO, J. 1. The petitioners Chhotalal Mohanta, Nihar Ranjan Modi, Dinakrushna Dash @ Das and Prakash Agarwalla have filed this application under section 438 of Cr.P.C. in connection with Jharpokharia P.S. Case No.57 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. Case No.02 of 2017 pending in the Court of learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada (hereafter ‘the Trial Judge’) for commission of offences punishable under sections 447, 332, 385, 353, 294, 506, 427 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, section 3(1)(x)(i) of SC & ST (PA) Act and section 3 of P.D.P.P. Act, 1984 and section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act. 2. The case was instituted on the first information report submitted by one Kulamani Bhoi, Asst. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in charge, Jamsola check gate before the Inspector in-charge of Jharpokharia police station on 23.05.2016. 3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted on 17.02.2017 under sections 447, 294, 332, 353, 385, 506, 427 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, section 3 of P.D.P.P. Act and section 3 (1)(r)(s)(va) of the SC & ST (PA) Act against the four petitioners as well as co-accused Krushna Chandra Mohapatra and accordingly, on 23.02.2017 the learned Trial Judge took cognizance of such offences and issued summons in respect of the petitioners as well as co-accused Krushna Chandra Mohapatra. On 16.03.2017 the petitioners filed a petition under section 205 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Trial Judge for dispensing with their personal attendance which was considered and rejected on the very day and the case was posted to 28.03.2017 for appearance of the petitioners. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners before the learned Trial Judge filed an application on 28.03.2017 seeking time for appearance of the petitioners as well as co-accused Krushna Chandra Mohapatra which was allowed and the case was posted to 01.05.2017 for appearance of the accused persons and the informant. 4. While the matter stood thus before the learned Trial Judge in G.R. Case No.2 of 2017, the petitioners filed this application under section 438 of Cr.P.C. on 30.03.2017 seeking for anticipatory bail. 4. While the matter stood thus before the learned Trial Judge in G.R. Case No.2 of 2017, the petitioners filed this application under section 438 of Cr.P.C. on 30.03.2017 seeking for anticipatory bail. The matter was taken up on 18.04.2017 and since the case involved the offence under section 3 of the SC & ST (PA) Act, in view of the section 15-A of the said Act, the learned counsel for the petitioners was permitted to implead the informant as opposite party no.2 and notice was directed to be issued to the informant and as an interim measure, all the four petitioners were directed not to be arrested in connection with case till the next date on condition that the petitioners shall cooperate with the investigation as and when required. 5. When the matter was placed before this Court on 18.04.2017, even though it is mentioned in the body of the petition that the charge sheet has been submitted but the same was not brought to the notice of this Court for which a direction was passed that the petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation as and when required while granting interim protection. 6. There is no dispute that an application under section 438 of Cr.P.C. is maintainable even after submission of charge sheet and taking of cognizance of offences basing on such charge sheet. (Ref:-(2003) 26 Orissa Criminal Reports (SC) 641, Bharat Chaudhary -Vrs.-State of Bihar) 7. After filing of the requisites as per the order dated 18.04.2017 by the learned counsel for the petitioners for issuance of notice on opposite party no.2, the case was listed on 17.05.2017 for orders when a Misc. Case was filed by the learned counsel for the petitioners in Court for appropriate orders which was numbered as Misc. Case No.594 of 2017. It is averred in the Misc. Case that when the petitioners appeared before the Court along with their counsel and the learned counsel filed an application under section 437 of Cr.P.C. for release of the accused persons, the learned Court below without considering the application and without looking into the order passed by this Court in this anticipatory bail application, remanded them to judicial custody by order dated 15.05.2017. 8. This Court took up the Misc. Case on the very day, asked the registry to register the Misc. Case and sent a copy of the Misc. 8. This Court took up the Misc. Case on the very day, asked the registry to register the Misc. Case and sent a copy of the Misc. Case along with the annexures to the learned Trial Judge to submit an explanation on the averments made in the Misc. Case in a sealed cover and simultaneously directed the petitioners who were stated to be in jail custody to be released on bail. Accordingly, the petitioners nos. 1, 2 and 4 were released from custody on 22.05.2017. 9. In pursuance of the order dated 17.05.2017 passed in Misc. Case No. 594 of 2017, the learned Trial Judge submitted his explanation in a sealed cover. I have gone through the explanation meticulously. 10. On going through the petition for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioners, it is apparent that there is no mention of issuance of summons against the petitioners by the learned Trial Judge after taking cognizance of the offences as per the order dated 23.02.2017 as well as rejection of the petition under section 205 of Cr.P.C. vide order dated 16.03.2017. In the Misc. Case No. 594 of 2017 filed in Court on 17.05.2017 for appropriate orders, it is indicated as follows:- “2. That on 18.04.2017 this Hon’ble Court after due course of hearing directed to implead the informant as opp. party no.2 and as an interim measure directed that the petitioners shall not be arrested in connection with Jharpokharia P.S. Case No.57 of 2016, corresponding to G.R. Case No.2 of 2017 pending before the learned Special Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada till next date on the condition that the petitioners shall cooperate with the investigation as and when required. 3. That as the matter stood thus the I.O. submitted charge-sheet for commission of offences under sections 447/ 294/332/353/385/506/427/34 of IPC along with section 3 P.D.P.P. Act read with section 3(1)(r)(s)/2(v) of SC/ST (P.A.) Act and after charge sheet submitted the learned Spl. Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada issued summons and directed the petitioners for appearance.” 11. The wordings in paragraph 3 “as the matter stood thus the I.O. submitted charge-sheet” is factually incorrect inasmuch as charge sheet was submitted on 17.02.2017 and not after the interim order dated 18.04.2017. 12. In paragraph 4 of the Misc. Case No. 594 of 2017, it is mentioned that as per the direction of the learned Special Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada, the petitioners appeared before the Court. 12. In paragraph 4 of the Misc. Case No. 594 of 2017, it is mentioned that as per the direction of the learned Special Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada, the petitioners appeared before the Court. This is also not factually correct inasmuch as petitioner no.3 Dinakrushna Dash @ Das has not appeared before the learned Trial Judge on 15.05.2017. It is also not correct as averred in paragraph-4 of the Misc. Case that an application under section 437 of Cr.P.C. was filed for release of petitioner no.3 Dinakrushna Dash @ Das. 13. The learned Trial Judge in his explanation has highlighted that on 15.05.2017 the petitioners nos.1, 2 and 4 along with co-accused Krushna Chandra Mohapatra appeared in Court along with their counsels and two bail applications were filed, one for co-accused Krushna Chandra Mohapatra and other for petitioners nos. 1, 2 and 4 and after their appearance, they were taken into judicial custody before hearing of the bail petitions. It is further indicated in the explanation that when the bail petitions were taken up, the learned counsel submitted a petition for time for the appearance of petitioner no.3 Dinakrushna Dash @ Das and also filed ‘not press’ memo of the bail petitions wherein it is mentioned that he does not want to press the bail application. It is further stated in the explanation that since no further bail petition was filed and the accused persons had appeared in Court and taken into judicial custody therefore, he had no other option but to send them to custody. 14. In Misc. Case No. 594 of 2017 which was filed on 17.05.2017, this aspect regarding not pressing of the bail petitions after the appearance of the petitioners nos. 1, 2 and 4 and after they were taken into judicial custody has not been reflected. 15. Even though the interim protection order aspect has been mentioned in the bail petition filed on behalf of the petitioners nos. 1, 2 and 4 before the learned Trial Judge but since that petition was not pressed, I am of the humble view that no illegality has been committed by the learned Trial Judge to send those petitioners to jail custody as by then those petitioners were already taken into judicial custody after their appearance. 16. Therefore, it is clear that not only the main petition which was filed for anticipatory bail but also the Misc. 16. Therefore, it is clear that not only the main petition which was filed for anticipatory bail but also the Misc. Case No.594 of 2017 which was filed in Court on 17.05.2017 suffers from suppression of materials facts and also full of misleading statements. One is expected to come to the Court with clean hands and present his case in a truthful manner and should not indulge in giving misleading statements and suppression of materials facts. If the Court finds out that the facts have not been fully and fairly stated to it by the applicant, the Court will set aside any action which it has taken on the faith of the imperfect statement. If the applicant makes a false statement or suppresses material fact or attempts to mislead the Court, the Court may dismiss the action on that ground alone. An applicant who suppresses the material facts from the Court is guilty of suppressio veri and suggestio f alsi i.e. suppression or failure to disclose what a party is bound to disclose may amount to fraud. 17. It is the settled proposition of law that a false statement made in the Court or in the pleadings, intentionally to mislead the Court and obtain a favourable order, amounts to criminal contempt, as it tends to impede the administration of justice. It adversely affects the interest of the public in the administration of justice. Every party is under a legal obligation to make truthful statements before the Court, for the reason that causing an obstruction in the due course of justice undermines and obstructs the very flow of the unsoiled stream of justice, which has to be kept clear and pure, and no one can be permitted to take liberties with it by soiling its purity. (Ref:-Naraindas -Vrs.-Government of Madhya Pradesh and Ors., A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 1252; The Advocate General, State of Bihar -Vrs.-Madhya Pradesh Khair Industries and Anr., AIR 1980 SC 946 ; and Afzal and Anr. -Vrs.-State of Haryana and Ors., (1996) 7 Supreme Court Cases 397). 18. In K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Limited and Ors. reported in (2008) 12 Supreme Court Cases 481, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows:- “Prerogative writs are issued for doing substantial justice. -Vrs.-State of Haryana and Ors., (1996) 7 Supreme Court Cases 397). 18. In K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Limited and Ors. reported in (2008) 12 Supreme Court Cases 481, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows:- “Prerogative writs are issued for doing substantial justice. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that the petitioner approaching the writ court must come with clean hands, put forward all the facts before the court without concealing or suppressing anything and seek an appropriate relief. If there is no candid disclosure of relevant and material facts or the petitioner is guilty of misleading the court, his petition may be dismissed at the threshold without considering the merits of the claim.” 19. Since basing on the misleading and factually incorrect averments made in the Misc. Case No.564 of 2017, the petitioners were directed to be released on bail by the learned Trial Judge, this Court thinks it is proper to recall the bail order dated 17.05.2017. Accordingly, the petitioners nos. 1, 2 and 4 namely Chhotalal Mahanta, Nihar Ranjan Modi and Prakash Agarwalla who have been released on bail by virtue of the order dated 17.05.2017 passed in Misc. Case No.594 of 2017 are directed to surrender before the learned Sessions Judge -cum-Special Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada in G.R. Case No. 02 of 2017 within a week from today failing which the learned Trial Judge shall take appropriate steps for their arrest in accordance with law. If the aforesaid three petitioners appear and move for bail, their bail applications shall be considered in accordance with law on its own merits. 20. Send a copy of the order to the learned Sessions Judge -cum-Special Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada immediately. 21. Free copy of the order be handed over to the learned counsel for the State 22. Accordingly, the ABLAPL application is disposed of.