Amitav Kumar Gupta, J. - (1.) The present criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed under Section 439(2) read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for cancellation of the bail granted to O.P. No. 2, Md. Sadrul, in B.A. No. 996 of 2016.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Vigilance P.S. Case No. 22 of 2012 (corresponding to Special Case No. 24 of 2012) was registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 469, 471, 477A of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against O.P. No. 2 and other accused on the basis of the complaint, filed by the petitioner/informant, alleging that O.P. No. 2 in connivance with the officials of the revenue department had manipulated and committed forgery in the revenue records by incorporating the name of his father in place of the name of the petitioner/informant with respect to the land originally recorded in the name of the petitioner. It is submitted that O.P. No. 2's bail application was rejected twice, however O.P. No. 2 renewed his prayer for bail by swearing an affidavit that he would not claim the said land in future. The Court after taking note of and on consideration of the statement of O.P. No. 2 admitted him to bail. It is argued by the learned counsel that O.P. No. 2 had suppressed the material fact that he had already sold the land by registered sale deeds in 2010 and 2012 respectively. That in fact O.P. No. 2 did not disclose the fact that he had filed writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 5546 of 2013, challenging the expunction of the name of his father from the revenue records. That the misrepresentation of the actual state of affairs tantamounts to misguiding and playing fraud upon the Court with an intent to secure the bail. Learned counsel while relying on the decision reported in , : (2008) 13 SCC 584, has submitted that the Supreme Court has held that when irrelevant materials are taken into consideration for granting bail the High Court is justified in cancelling the bail under Section 439(2) of the Cr.P.C.
(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Anti-Corruption Bureau, Jharkhand, has submitted that in the bail application O.P. No. 2 did not disclose nor certified regarding the pendency of W.P.(C) No. 5546 of 2013. That suppression of such fact is violative of Rule 139(1)(g) of the High Court of Jharkhand Rules. That due to non-disclosure of the above fact the Department was unable to render proper assistance to the Court during the hearing of the bail application and O.P. No. 2 was granted bail on the basis of incorrect statement made on affidavit.;