Rajiv Roy, J. – The question that has been raised in the present petition is as to whether the anticipatory bail granted to the opposite parties herein need to be cancelled in view of the averment by the petitioner that the process under Section 83 of the Cr.P.C. was executed by the Police on 26.02.2024 which was suppressed by the opposite parties herein when they approached the High Court for the grant of anticipatory bail. 2. Chiraiya P.S. Case no. 218 of 2022 was instituted under Sections 341, 323, 307, 354, 379, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code on 09.05.2022 by the informant, Yamuna Tiwari @ Braj Bihari Tiwari. 3. The allegation in the FIR is that on 07.05.2022, as the informant’s son Surendra Tiwari objected Dhrup Narayan Tiwari who had started construction on a government land, his son, Sonu Tiwari gave ‘khanti’ blow on his head, was badly injured and collapsed on the ground. When the informant’s younger son and daughter-in-law came to his rescue, the allegation against Dhrup Narayan Tiwari is of giving ‘iron rod’ blow to the informant’s younger son, Upendra Tiwari. The allegation against the opposite party no. 2 to 4 as also six others is/are of assaulting the informant’s daughter-in-law and snatching her gold chain. Accordingly, the FIR. 4. Subsequently, the opposite nos. 2 to 4 preferred Cr. Misc. No. 40812 of 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail after rejection of their anticipatory bail application by the learned Sessions Judge, Motihari on 11.11.2022. 5. The contention in the anticipatory bail application was/were that: – (i) they do not have criminal antecedent; (ii) specific allegation of assault is/are against Sonu Tiwari, Dhrup Narain Tiwari and Vishal Kumar; (iii) omnibus allegation is there against the petitioners (Opposite parties herein); (iv) counter case vide Chiraiya P.S. Case No. 225 of 2022 has been lodged by the family and others. 6. The matter was taken up by this Court on 28.07.2023 and after hearing the learned Counsels for the petitioners, Mr. Abhishek Kumar and the State and considering that there is/are omnibus allegation against the O.P.s herein, anticipatory bail application was allowed. 7. Two months later, the informant preferred the present petition for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to opposite party nos. Abhishek Kumar and the State and considering that there is/are omnibus allegation against the O.P.s herein, anticipatory bail application was allowed. 7. Two months later, the informant preferred the present petition for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to opposite party nos. 2 to 4 on the ground that: – (i) the anticipatory bail application of accused Sonu Tiwari was rejected by a bench of the Court on 16.01.2023; (ii) opposite parties are prime accused who caused injuries to the informant side; (iii) after the FIR was lodged and as Police failed to arrest them, processes under Section 83 of the Cr.P.C. was issued and executed on 26.02.2023; (iv) as this fact was suppressed with the court and accordingly, anticipatory bail procured, the same needs to be cancelled. 8. Ms. Tanushree and Mr. Prabhakar Nath Rai appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the accused persons brutally assaulted the informant’s side causing serious injuries to his son, Surendra Tiwari. Further, Section 83 of the Cr.P.C. process was executed against the opposite parties and as this fact was suppressed from the court, on this ground alone, the anticipatory bail granted to the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 be cancelled. 9. Learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment and order of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana vs. Dharamraj [(SLP (Cr.l.) No. 2256 of 2022] [2023 (6) BLJ 32 (SC)] wherein the Court cancelled the anticipatory bail granted to the respondents after taking note of another order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Abhishek vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2022) 8 SCC 282 [: 2023 (5) BLJ 289 (SC)] wherein it was concluded: – “68. As regards the implication of proclamation having been issued against the appellant, we have no hesitation in making it clear that any person, who is declared as an "absconder" and remains out of reach of the investigating agency and thereby stands directly at conflict with law, ordinarily, deserves no concession or indulgence. By way of reference, we may observe that in relation to the indulgence of pre-arrest bail in terms of Section 438 CrPC, this Court has repeatedly said that when an accused is absconding and is declared as proclaimed offender, there is no question of giving him the benefit of Section 438 CrPC. By way of reference, we may observe that in relation to the indulgence of pre-arrest bail in terms of Section 438 CrPC, this Court has repeatedly said that when an accused is absconding and is declared as proclaimed offender, there is no question of giving him the benefit of Section 438 CrPC. [For example, Prem Shankar Prasad vs. State of Bihar, (2022 14 SCC 529: 2021 SCC Online SC 955]”. 10. The Hon’ble Apex Court thus held: – 17. Accordingly, in view of the discussions made hereinabove, the Impugned order granting anticipatory bail to the respondent is set aside. The respondent shall surrender before the Court concerned within four weeks from today and may seek regular bail which will be considered on its own merits without being prejudiced by the present judgment.” 11. Mrs. Rashmi Jha, learned counsel is representing the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 and a counter affidavit is also on record. She submits that: – (i) so far as the rejection of the anticipatory bail application of the accused Sonu Tiwari is concerned, the specific allegation against him is that he gave ‘khanti’ blow on the head of the son of the informant, namely, Surendra Tiwari; (ii) the FIR nowhere alleged assault by these opposite parties on Surendra Tiwari; (iii) the learned Sessions Judge vide an order dated 11.11.2022 did not observed any such process and further even otherwise execution of process of Section 83 Cr.P.C. does not disentitle an accused to prefer an application for grant of anticipatory bail application. She submits that it is not the case of the petitioner that the grant of anticipatory bail has been misused. 12. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has also cited the case of Patna High Court in the case of Santosh Yadav @ Santosh Kumar Yadav vs. The State of Bihar (Cr. Misc. no. She submits that it is not the case of the petitioner that the grant of anticipatory bail has been misused. 12. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has also cited the case of Patna High Court in the case of Santosh Yadav @ Santosh Kumar Yadav vs. The State of Bihar (Cr. Misc. no. 38750 of 2021) [: 2022 (5) BLJ 29 ] decided on 04.07.2022 in which the learned Single Judge held as follows: – “After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State, the Court comes to a considered conclusion that anticipatory bail application is maintainable even after issuance of process under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C further the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia (supra) has very clearly laid that anticipatory bail application is maintainable even after filing of charge-sheet or till the person is not arrested, thereafter another Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal and Others vs State (NCT of Delhi) and Another (supra) had also placed reliance on the Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia (supra). Further from the scheme of Cr.P.C. it prima-facie appears that Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. is resorted to only when an accused is trying to flee from justice and Section 83 Cr.P.C. is an additional provision to create more pressure on the accused to surrender since the provision provides for attachment of property but then the said attachment of property is not final and it is subject to Sections 84, 85 and 86 of the Cr.P.C., as aforesaid, further if on objection the attachment order is recalled then definitely it will be presumed that the petitioner no longer is an absconder because abscondence is a precondition for issuance of an order under Section 83 of the Cr.P.C. thus primafacie it appears that Sections 82 and 83 are provisions which are provisional in nature and as such a valuable right like personal liberty as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be taken away based on a transient provision. The Court is also in agreement with the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. nowhere bars anticipatory bail application on the ground of issuance of process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. thus the Court holds that anticipatory bail application is maintainable even after issuance of process under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. though the accused on merits may not be entitled to seek relief based on his conduct leading to issuance of process under Section 82 but then definitely maintainability of an anticipatory bail application after issuance of process under Section 82 is definitely not barred”. 13. This Court has gone through the facts of the case as also the materials on record. First the facts. The allegation in the FIR is that Sonu Tiwari assaulted the informant’s son, Surendra Tiwari on his head by ‘khanti’ which was found grievous as observed by the learned Sessions Judge, Motihari and the anticipatory bail of Sonu Tiwari was rejected. 14. Further, there is/are allegation against Dhrup Narain Tiwari of assaulting his other son, Upendra Tiwari. So far as the allegation against the present accused/opposite party nos. 2 to 4 is/are concerned, it relates to assault/snatching of the gold chain from his daughter-in-law, Mithilesh Pandey. 15. As the Court was unaware of the execution of process issued under Section 83 of the Cr.P.C. as this fact was not brought to its notice by the opposite parties/their counsel herein, taking into account the aforesaid facts, their anticipatory bail was allowed on 28.07.2023. 16. Now the question remains whether in the aforesaid background, the relief granted to the opposite parties no. 2 to 4 be withdrawn and the present petition be allowed on the ground that the process under Section 83 of the Cr.P.C. was executed prior to the filing of the anticipatory bail application and as such, it has to be considered as suppression of facts. 17. This Court is of the view that the petitioners in Cr. Misc. No. 40812 of 2023 (opposite party nos. 2 to 4 herein) ought to have disclosed about the aforesaid facts as the process under section 83 Cr.P.C. was executed in the month of February 2023 itself and the anticipatory bail application was preferred in the month of June, 2023. Why this Court considers it as suppression of facts will be discussed at later stage. 18. 2 to 4 herein) ought to have disclosed about the aforesaid facts as the process under section 83 Cr.P.C. was executed in the month of February 2023 itself and the anticipatory bail application was preferred in the month of June, 2023. Why this Court considers it as suppression of facts will be discussed at later stage. 18. Now this Court has to see whether the execution of process under Section 83 of the Cr.P.C. debars an accused from availing legel remedy available to him under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. 19. The admitted fact is that the anticipatory bail application of the opposite parties herein was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Motihari on 11.11.2022. This followed the petition preferred by the police before the concerned court/Sikrahana for the issuance of process under Section 83 of the Cr.P.C. 20. At this stage, it would be appropriate that Section 83 of the Cr.P.C. (henceforth for short ‘the Cr.P.C.) is incorporated herein below. “83. Attachment of property of person absconding. – (1) The Court issuing a proclamation under section 82 may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, at any time after the issue of the proclamation, order the attachment of any property, movable or immovable, or both, belonging to the proclaimed person: Provided that where at the time of the issue of the proclamation the Court is satisfied, by affidavit or otherwise, that the person in relation to whom the proclamation is to be issued,- (a) is about to dispose of the whole or any part of his property, or (b) is about to remove the whole or any part of his property from the local jurisdiction of the Court, it may order the attachment simultaneously with the issue of the proclamation. (2) Such order shall authorise the attachment of any property belonging to such person within the district in which it is made; and it shall authorise the attachment of any property belonging to such person without such district when endorsed by the District Magistrate within whose district such property is situate. (3) If the property ordered to be attached is a debt or other movable property. (3) If the property ordered to be attached is a debt or other movable property. the attachment under this section shall be made- (a) by seizure; or (b) by the appointment of a receiver, or (c) by an order in writing prohibiting the delivery of such property to the proclaimed person or to any one on his behalf; or (d) by all or any two of such methods, as the Court thinks fit. (4) If the property ordered to be attached is immovable, the attachment under this section shall, in the case of land paying revenue to the State Government, be made through the Collector of the district in which the land is situate, and in all other cases- (a) by taking possession; or (b) by the appointment of a receiver, or (c) by an order in writing prohibiting the payment of rent on delivery of property to the proclaimed person or to any one on his behalf or (d) by all or any two of such methods, as the Court thinks fit. (5) If the property ordered to be attached consists of live-stock or is of a perishable nature, the Court may, if it thinks it expedient, order immediate sale thereof, and in such case the proceeds of the sale shall abide the order of the Court (6) The powers, duties and liabilities of a receiver appointed under this section shall be the same as those of a receiver appointed under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (5 of 1908).” 21. The Court of learned A.C.J.M.-IV, Sikrahana, Dhaka been satisfied with the requisition sought for by the police and having taken note of their ‘absconder’ status issued the order of attachment. The police subsequently executed the process. 22. The opposite parties herein being well aware of these developments even then chose not to follow the process of law by surrendering before the Court and take bail, instead, after waiting for four months, on 26.06.2023, the anticipatory bail application was preferred. In that said circumstances, it was expected that the development that took place after the rejection of anticipatory bail on 11.11.2022 be incorporated in the petition. 23. The opposite parties cannot contend that since the order of the learned Session Judge nowhere stated about the execution of the process under Section 83 of the Cr.P.C., the same was not brought to the notice of the Court. 24. 23. The opposite parties cannot contend that since the order of the learned Session Judge nowhere stated about the execution of the process under Section 83 of the Cr.P.C., the same was not brought to the notice of the Court. 24. Now the Court takes note of the case of prime accused, Sonu Tiwari who gave ‘khanti’ blow to the informant’s son Surendra Tiwari causing grievous injury to him. He went into judicial custody on 23.06.2023. 25. Subsequently, Cr. Misc. No. 51605 of 2023 was filed for grant of bail through the same office which filed the anticipatory bail application of Opposite parties herein. It was argued by the same counsel, Mr. Abhishek Kumar and contention made in Sonu Tiwari’s bail application by the learned counsel for the petitioners was/were that the injury inflicted by him has been found to be simple in nature. 26. Taking into account of the aforesaid facts, bail was granted to Sonu Tiwari on 11.08.2023 by the Co-ordinate Bench. The order read as follows: – “It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. There was a free fight in which members of both sides have sustained injury. The alleged occurrence took place at the spur of moment. Informant’s son has received simple injury as per submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner has got no criminal antecedent and languishing in judicial custody since 23.6.2023. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP for the State. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The above named petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Shikarpur at Dhaka, East Champaran in connection with Chiraiya (Shikarganj) PS Case No. 218 of 2022.” 27. This clearly shows that even the said order dated 11.08.2023 was procured by suppressing the facts that Surendra Tiwari has got simple injury as against the submission made in Cr. Misc. No. 40812 of 2023 wherein it was submitted that specific allegation is against Sonu Tiwari. 28. This clearly shows that even the said order dated 11.08.2023 was procured by suppressing the facts that Surendra Tiwari has got simple injury as against the submission made in Cr. Misc. No. 40812 of 2023 wherein it was submitted that specific allegation is against Sonu Tiwari. 28. This Court has taken note of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the State of Haryana vs. Dhanraj (supra) which has elaborately discussed another Apex Court’s order in the case of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia vs. The State of Punjab (supra) (1980) SC 1632 and Sushila Agarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in AIR 2020 SCC 1 (supra) and held that application under Section 438 of the Cr.PC. should not have been entertained as the accused is not entitled to anticipatory bail. 29. In the aforesaid background, the judgment of Santosh Kumar Yadav (supra) of Patna High Court cited by the opposite parties cannot come to their rescue in view of the successive orders of the Hon’ble Apex Court in this regard. 30. Taking into account the aforesaid facts, this Court has no option but to allow the petition preferred by the informant, Yamuna Tiwari. The anticipatory bail application granted to the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 namely, Suman Tiwari, Rakesh Tiwari and Khusindra Tiwari respectively on 28.07.2023 is/are hereby set aside. The opposite parties are directed to surrender before the concerned court within four weeks from today and seek bail. If they fail to surrender within four weeks, the Court concerned shall take immediate steps to ensure that they are brought back to judicial custody. 31. This Court however, takes note of the fact that after passing of the order on 28.07.2023, the opposite parties no. 2 to 4 are out on bail and it is not the case of the petitioner that they have misused the same and/or threatened the informant and/or the witnesses. 32. In the aforesaid circumstances, an interim protection is extended to the Opposite Party nos. 2 to 4 till an order is passed by the concerned Court on their bail application (s). However, this interim protection will be effective only if the Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 4 surrender within four weeks from today. 33. Cr. Misc. No. 58245 of 2023 is allowed.