Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.30636 of 2011 ====================================================== Sanjay Kumar Bhadani son of Sri Shyam Sunder Prasad Bhadani, resident of 53, Tekari Road, P.S.-Kotwali, District- Gaya .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1.The State Of Bihar 2.C.L.Shukla son of late Shri Rampati Shukla, resident of ‘Surya Niwas’ Lal Kothi Compound near Victor X-Ray, P.S.-Civil Line, District- Gaya. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== For the petitioner: Mr. Basant Kumar Choudhary, Sr.Advocate and Mr.Nagendra Kumar Singh, Advocate For opposite party no.2: Mr. Y.V.Giri, Sr. Advocate and Mr.Raju Giri, Advocate CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 7 09-04-2012 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner, opposite party no.2 and the State. The petitioner has filed the present application under section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail to opposite party no.2 by order dated 22.7.2011 passed in Cr.Misc. No.24187 of 2011. By order dated 18.10.2011 notice was issued to opposite party no.2 and upon service of notice opposite party no.2 has appeared and filed a counter affidavit. On behalf of the petitioner a rejoinder to the counter affidavit has been filed today in court. Let it be kept on record. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that anticipatory bail was obtained by opposite party no.2 by Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.30636 of 2011 (7) dt.09-04-2012 2 misleading the court on the basis of wrong statement made in the bail application which fact has been denied by the answering opposite party. It is not in dispute that for consignment in question the petitioner being a carrying and forwarding agent of M/s Maihar Cement, which is a unit of Century Textiles and Industries Ltd., a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, a first information report was instituted. The police on conclusion of investigation with respect to the allegation made by the petitioner in the first information report submitted a final report holding the case to be ‘a mistake of fact’. When the police case failed, he lodged the present complaint in which cognizance was taken under [STATUTE] . Considering all aspects of the matter, the application under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of opposite party no.2 was allowed as, at the relevant time, he was Manager (Sales) in M/s Maihar Cement. After hearing the parties and perusing the record, I do not find force in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. Prima facie, there appears to be no wrong statement made by opposite party no.2 when his anticipatory bail application was heard and allowed by the court. It is well settled that rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.30636 of 2011 (7) dt.09-04-2012 3 of bail already granted have to be considered and dealt with on different basis. Very cogent and over whelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing cancellation of bail already granted on merit by a speaking order after hearing the Additional Public Prosecutor. There is no allegation that the petitioner has misused his liberty by indulging in criminal activity, interfered with investigation or tampered with evidence or witnesses. It is also not a case where the petitioner has breached the conditions imposed by the court while granting bail to him. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find no good ground for allowing the present petition under section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, accordingly, the same is dismissed. Md.S./- (Ashwani Kumar Singh, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 406

Statute Text:
Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. Criminal breach of trust. Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.