Court holds that bail obtained by misrepresentation and suppression of material facts is a nullity and recalls order granted to accused who misled the Court about his role in sale deeds.
In a significant judgment delivered on October 9, 2026, the Patna High Court recalled and set aside the anticipatory bail granted to Amit Kumar @ Amit Kumar Sahni by a Coordinate Bench of the same Court. The Court held that the bail was obtained by making a false statement on oath and suppressing a material fact regarding his involvement in a land transaction, thereby amounting to abuse of the court's process.
The case arose from a complaint filed by Ram Ayodhya Sahani, the petitioner, against his nephew Amit Kumar, among others, alleging cheating, forgery, and criminal conspiracy in relation to the sale of ancestral land in Vaishali district, Bihar. The petitioner had entrusted the sale of his land to Amit Kumar, who was to purchase part of it and bring other buyers, with the entire consideration to be remitted through bank transactions.
Amit Kumar had obtained anticipatory bail from the Patna High Court in December 2018 by swearing that he was only an identifier on the sale deeds and neither a vendor nor a vendee. However, the petitioner later produced a registered sale deed dated the same day, which showed Amit Kumar as the vendee of the largest parcel of the land for Rs. 29.48 lakhs-a fact deliberately withheld during the bail application.
The Court examined the documents and noted that Amit Kumar annexed the sale deed where he appeared only as an identifier but suppressed the one where he was the principal purchaser. This misrepresentation was material to the grant of bail as it concealed his pivotal role in the alleged fraud.
Relying on settled Supreme Court precedents including S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath and A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Government of A.P., the Court reiterated that any bail order procured by fraud or falsehood is a nullity and can be recalled irrespective of any subsequent conduct of the accused. The Court distinguished between cancellation of bail on supervening misconduct and annulment of bail orders founded on fraudulent grounds at inception.
The Court also rejected the argument that annexure of the FIR to the bail petition disclosed the true facts, emphasizing the applicant's duty of full and candid disclosure. It held that a positive misstatement of fact, contrary to documentary evidence on record, amounts to abuse of the judicial process.
The judgment underscores that mere availability of civil remedies does not bar criminal proceedings arising from the same facts if criminal offenses like cheating and forgery are alleged. The Court made it clear that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, which is to be decided by the trial court.
Finally, the Court expressed strong disapproval of Amit Kumar's conduct for misleading the Court and enjoying the benefit of bail for nearly eight years. Although it refrained from initiating penal proceedings under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code at this stage, it warned that the forbearance should not be construed as condonation of such conduct.
This judgment serves as a stern reminder that the courts demand utmost honesty from litigants seeking discretionary relief like bail, and any attempt to deceive the court can lead to immediate annulment of such relief.
Bottom Line:
Anticipatory bail obtained by making a false statement on oath and by suppressing a material fact is liable to be recalled and set aside; such annulment is distinct from cancellation of bail on account of post-grant misconduct and does not require proof of supervening circumstances.
Statutory provision(s):
Section 438, Section 439(2), Section 156(3), Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973; Sections 52, 58, 60 of the Registration Act, 1908; Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
Ram Ayodhya Sahani v. State of Bihar, (Patna) : Law Finder Doc Id # 3002553
