IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.7635 of 2008 1. JITENDRA SHARMA 2. SATENDRA SHARMA Both sons of Late Birja Sharma, resident of village- Bahbalpur, P.S. Kurtha in the district of Arwal. ………. Petitioners Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR…… Opposite Party ----------- For the petitioner No.1: Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate For petitioner no. 2: Mr. Prabhu Narain Sharma, Advocate For the Deponent: Mr. Akhileshwar Pd. Singh, Advocate For the State: Mr. S.S.Shabbar Hussain, Advocate For the informant:- Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate. ---------- 4. 17.09.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner no.1, learned counsel for petitioner no. 2 and learned counsel for the deponent of the affidavit in the anticipatory bail application out of which this matter arises. Also heard learned counsel for the informant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor. When the main anticipatory bail application was being considered, learned counsel for the informant informed this Court that the two petitioners in the bail application, namely, Jitendra Sharma and Satendra Sharma had earlier also filed anticipatory bail application which was registered as Cr. Misc. No. 18744/2004 and was rejected by order dated 18.8.2004 passed by this Court. It was also contended that the said facts have not been mentioned in paragraph no. 2 of the present anticipatory bail application and thus the petitioners are guilty of swearing false affidavit to the extent that it is stated that they have not moved earlier before this Court for grant of anticipatory bail. On a verification from the file of Cr. Misc. No. 18744/2004 it was found that earlier petitioner no. 2 Satendra Sharma had - 2 - filed the said anticipatory bail application along with two other co- accused persons of the case and the same had been rejected by this Court by order dated 18.8.2004. Thereafter the two petitioners as also the deponent of the affidavit, namely, their brother Arbind Sharma were directed to show cause as to why appropriate proceeding be not initiated against them for swearing/filing false affidavit in this Court. The show causes have been filed. In the show cause filed on behalf of petitioner no. 1 Jitendra Sharma as also the deponent of the affidavit in the present matter, namely, Arbind Sharma the stand taken is that the petitioner no. 1 and the deponent Arbind Sharma , who are brothers and also brothers of petitioner no. 2, Satendra Sharma, reside at their village home whereas Satendra Sharma works in a private company and resides at Dhanbad in the State of Jharkhand. Their further submission is that the petitioner Jitendra Sharma had not earlier filed any anticipatory bail application. The reason for the same was that in the charge sheet submitted by the police after completion of investigation the said Jitendra Sharma as also Satendra Sharma were not sent up for trial and thus there was no occasion for petitioner no. 1 to file an anticipatory bail application. Since the petitioner no. 2 was residing at Dhanbad neither the petitioner no. 1 nor the deponent Arbind Sharma were aware of the fact that he has filed another anticipatory bail application. It is pointed out that the earlier anticipatory bail application being Cr. Misc. No. 18744/2004 had not been sworn by the present deponent, Arbind Sharma and thus he had no information that Satendra Sharma had filed such an application and neither Jitendra Sharma nor - 3 - Arbind Sharma were informed by petitioner no. 2 Satendra Sharma that he had earlier filed another anticipatory bail application before this Court. Accordingly on learning that the petitioner no. 1 Jitgendra Sharma intended to file an anticipatory bail application before the Sessions Judge when he also requested to join therein as a petitioner the same was acceded to by petitioner no. 1 and in the petition before the learned Sessions Judge also the same fact had been stated that neither of the petitioners had earlier filed any anticipatory bail application. On the basis of the above fact it is the common plea of the petitioner no. 1 and also the deponent, Arbind Sharma that since they had no information about the filing of the anticipatory bail application by petitioner no. 2 Satendra Sharma ,which has been admitted in the show cause filed by Satendra Sharma that he has not given any such information, hence, they not being aware of the said fact, in all innocence made the statement that the petitioners had not moved this Court earlier for the grant of anticipatory bail. Learned counsels therefore submit that reply to the show causes of petitioner no. 1 Jitendra Sharma and the deponent, Arbind Sharma should be accepted by this Court. On a consideration of the entire facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that there may be an element of truth in the stand taken by petitioner no. 1 Jitendra Sharma and the deponent Arbind Sharma and it is possible that petitioner no. 2, although a brother but living separately at Dhanbad, may not have intimated to them his earlier having filed the anticipatory bail application. Hence, the replies to the show causes filed on behalf of Jitendra Sharma and Arbind Sharma are - 4 - accepted and no further action is required to be taken against them. The stand of petitioner no. 2, Satendera Sharma is that there was no deliberate suppression of any material fact by him or any attempt to mislead this Court by making false statement. It is stated that due to inadvertence and ignorance of law he failed to disclose the fact that he had earlier filed anticipatory bail application being Cr. Misc. No. 18744/2004 which had been rejected by order dated 18.4.2004. An unqualified apology has also been sought for by him. It is further stated by him that he has not informed his brothers, namely, petitioner no. 1 Jitendra Sharma and the deponent of the affidavit, Arbind Sharma regarding his having earlier filed anticipatory bail application which had been rejected by this Court. On a consideration of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is unable to accept the contention of petitioner no. 2 Satendra Sharma that he has not disclosed the said facts in the anticipatory bail application due to any inadvertence. He has not even disclosed the said fact on his own to his other two brothers which cannot prima facie be considered inadvertence. Prima facie, it discloses an attempt by him to suppress the said fact from the knowledge of all concerned and therefore this Court is of the view that appropriate proceedings be instituted against him for causing a false affidavit to be sworn on his behalf in the present matter. The Registrar General is accordingly directed to institute a criminal case against the petitioner no. 2, Satendra Sharma for having got sworn false affidavit in this Court, before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, - 5 - Patna under the applicable sections of the Indian Penal Code. S.Pandey (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)