Savita Devi vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 4961 Patna

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 4961 Patna
Judgement Date : 22 October, 2021

Patna High Court

Savita Devi vs The State Of Bihar on 22 October, 2021

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                       Letters Patent Appeal No.371 of 2021
                                        In
                CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20756 of 2020
     ======================================================

Savita Devi Wife of Sri Ajay Kumar Rai, resident of Village-Hasanpur Bhahadvas, Police Station-Mahua, District-Vaishali.

... ... Appellant/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Ajay Rai @ Ajay Kumar Rai, Son of Late Babu Lal Rai, resident of Village-

Hasanpur Bhahadvas, Police Station-Mahua, District-Vaishali.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Krishna Kant Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. P.K. Verma, AAG-3 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) ======================================================= (The proceedings of the Court are being conducted by Hon'ble the Chief Justice/ Hon'ble Judges through Video Conferencing from their residential offices/residences. Also, the Advocates and the Staffs joined the proceedings through Video Conferencing from their residences/offices.) =======================================================

Date : 22-10-2021

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred

against the order dated 11.11.2020 passed by a learned Single

Judge of this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 20756 of 2020, titled as

Ajay Rai @ Ajay Kumar Rai Vs. The State of Bihar.

The challenge, limited in nature, made by the Patna High Court L.P.A No.371 of 2021 dt.22-10-2021

appellant, is to that part of the order dated 11.11.2020, which we

reproduce as under:-

"In view of the fact that the petitioner has suppressed the fact regarding his criminal antecedent, this case is dismissed with a cost of Rs. 2 lacs to be paid by the person who has sworn the affidavit in the present case in favor of Patna High Court Legal Services Committee, Patna within a period of four weeks from today, in failure, the Collector, Vaishali is directed to recover the same as a land revenue.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the Collector, Vaishali as well as the Superintendent of Police, Vaishali for strict compliance of this order."

Leaving the issue of maintainability open, we are not

inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single

Judge, in dismissing the petitioner's application, seeking bail,

for the reason that the petitioner failed to disclose, in fact,

suppressed the material facts, his antecedents in respect to

which four cases of heinous nature stood registered against him.

Four First Information Reports, spread over a period of five

years, relating to heinous offences, were registered against the

petitioner, particulars whereof are given as under:-

"i) Mahua P.S. Case No. 129/2011 registered under Section 341, 323, 504, 379, Patna High Court L.P.A No.371 of 2021 dt.22-10-2021

353/34 I.P.C.

ii) Mahua P.S. Case No. 452/11 registered under Section 341, 323, 504, 342, 379, 353/34 I.P.C.

iii) Mahua P.S. Case No. 158/16 registered under Section 147, 148, 149, 504, 506, 307, 448 I.P.C. and 27 of Arms Act.

iv) Mahua P.S. Case No. 159/16 registered under Section 147, 148, 149, 504, 506, 380, 427, 448 I.P.C. and 27 of Arms Act."

The suppression of such information by the

petitioner, in our considered view, was only to hoodwink the

Court and to obtain a favourable order in his favour.