Loading...

Mantosh Kumar @ Mangal Rai vs State Of Bihar And Anr. on 5 January, 2005

Patna High Court
Mantosh Kumar @ Mangal Rai vs State Of Bihar And Anr. on 5 January, 2005
Equivalent citations: 2005 (1) BLJR 77
Author: M Visa
Bench: M Visa


JUDGMENT

M.L. Visa, J.

1. Learned counsel of petitioner is present but no body appears on behalf of opposite party No. 2 although notice was issued to opposite party No. 2 which was properly served and, thereafter, vakalatnama was filed on behalf of opposite party No. 2 and on 29.11.2004, learned counsel of opposite party No. 2 had appeared and prayed for two weeks’ time for filing counter affidavit which was allowed but, thereafter, on 20.12.2004 and 03.01.2005, neither opposite party No. 2 nor his counsel appeared and today also position is the same.

2. This application by petitioner has been filed for cancellation of bail of opposite party No. 2 granted by this Court on 02.07.2004 in Cr. Misc. No. 10657 of 2004.

3. Case of petitioner is that he is the informant of Begusarai Mufassil Police Station Case No. 369 of 2000 lodged under Sections 302, 307/34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of Arms Act in which allegation against opposite party No. 2 and two others has been made for firing on petitioner and Sushil Rai and in that firing although petitioner escaped unhurt but Sushil Rai received injuries and he died during the course of treatment. The further case of petitioner is that opposite party No. 2 moved for bail before this Court by filing an application which was numbered as Cr. Misc. No. 18995 of 2002 and which was heard by another Bench which, by its order dated 02.09.2002, rejected the prayer of opposite party No. 2 for bail. Thereafter, opposite party No. 2 again moved this Court for bail by filing an application which was numbered as Cr. Misc. No. 26904 of 2003 which was placed before the same Bench which had earlier passed order on 02.09.2002 rejecting his prayer and this time also by order dated 17.10.2003, prayer of opposite party No. 2 for bail was again rejected with a direction to Court below to expedite the trial and also for considering the desirability of splitting and separating the case of opposite party No. 2 from other absconding accused if there was no likelihood of his apprehension in near future. The further case of petitioner is that by Tiling third application praying for bail which was numbered as Cr. Misc. No. 10657 of 2004, opposite party No. 2 suppressed the fact that his prayer for bail had earlier been rejected twice by this Court and this information he was required to give in para 2 of his application as per the provisions of Patna High Court Rules but he did not do so and besides this, opposite party No. 2 made some interpolation in the copy of First Information Report showing that opposite party No. 2 made an attempt to inflict firearm injury on informant but the shot fired by him passed through the shoulder of informant and did not hit him. According to petitioner, in the original First Information Report, there is direct allegation against opposite party No. 2 of firing on deceased causing injury on his left shoulder and in the original First Information Report, opposite party No. 2 has been shown as one of the assailants of deceased. The further case of petitioner is that opposite party No. 2 started putting pressure on informant for compromise or to face dire consequences. Petitioner has prayed for cancellation of bail of opposite party No. 2 which, according to petitioner, has been obtained by him by suppressing the facts and committing fraud by making interpolations in the copy of First Information Report.

4. The records of Cr. Misc. No. 18995 Of 2002 and Cr. Misc. No. 26904 of 2003 were called for which have been produced and from the perusal of which, it appears that on 02.09.2002 and 17.10.2003, prayer of opposite party No. 2 for bail was rejected by this Court. From the perusal of record of Cr. Misc. No. 10657 of 2004 which has also been placed today, it appears that opposite party No. 2 has nowhere stated that earlier his prayer for bail by this Court was rejected twice in Cr. Misc. No. 18995 of 2002 and Cr. Misc. No. 26904 of 2003. On the contrary, in para 2 of this application, opposite party No. 2 has stated that he never moved earlier before this Court for grant of anticipatory bail or for regular bail. Obviously, this statement is a false statement. Besides this, the copy of First .Information Report filed in Cr. Misc. No. 18995 of 2002 which was the first application of opposite party No. 2 for bail before this Court, I find that allegation against opposite party No. 2 is that he fired from his pistol causing injury near the left shoulder of Sushil Rai who subsequently died. The copy of First Information Report filed second time by opposite party No. 2 in Cr. Misc. No. 26904 of 2003, same allegation is against opposite party No. 2 but surprisingly when opposite party No. 2 filed third application before this Court which was numbered as Cr. Misc. No. 10657 of 2004, not only he suppressed the fact of filing of bail application twice before this Court but in the copy of First Information Report filed alongwith application, allegation against him has been shown that he also fired by pistol on informant and shot fired by him did not hit the informant. This fact clearly shows that interpolations have been made in the First Information Report. From the materials on record, I find that opposite party No. 2 procured bail on 02.07.2004 from this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 10657 of 2004, not only suppressing the fact that earlier his prayer for bail was rejected twice by this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 18995 of 2002 and Cr. Misc. No. 26904 of 2003 but also making interpolation in First Information Report diverting the nature of allegation against him. The learned counsel of petitioner, by producing copy of First Information Report of Bhagwanpur Police Station Case No. 140 of 2004, has submitted that after release on bail, opposite party No. 2 has again inflicted firearm injury on Niraj Kumar, cousin brother of deceased Sushil Rai.

5. Considering the aforesaid facts, .this application is allowed and bail granted to opposite party No. 2 Santosh Kumar Rai on 02.07.2004 by this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 10657 of 2004 is hereby cancelled.

6. Court below is directed to take steps for arrest of opposite party No. 2 and for his remand to jail custody.

7. Registrar General is directed to institute a complaint against opposite party No. 2 and Bobby Roy who has sworn affidavit in Cr. Misc. No. 10657 of 2004 for swearing false affidavit and making interpolation in the copy of First Information Report.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information