IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.15331 of 2010 Mithilesh Kumar Sao Versus State Of Bihar ----------- 35 20.07.2011 By order dated 20.05.2010 the Registrar General was directed to hold inquiry and submit a report by 19th of July, 2010. However, on several occasions upon request the period of submission of the report was extended. Now the report has been submitted. In view of the nature of the case, it would be appropriate for this Court to give brief facts as under:- Suffice it to say that on 04.05.2010 this Court after hearing Mr. Sanjay Kumar @ Manu, learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Mr. Uma Shankar Pd. Singh, learned A.P.P. for the State, granted bail to the petitioner Mithilesh Kumar Sao upon the terms and conditions stated therein. However, on 20.05.2010 Mr. Sanjay Kumar @ Manu, learned counsel, who had argued the matter on behalf of the petitioner, informed this Court that though the petitioner’s prayer for bail was earlier refused vide order dated 31.08.2009 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 18031 of 2009 by a different Bench, still it appears that 2 suppressing aforesaid fact subsequently present case was filed wherein he had appeared to argue the same ignoramus of the aforesaid fact. However, later on he came to know about it and then he had brought this fact to the notice of this Court. Thus, in view of the aforesaid fact, this Court stayed the earlier order dated 04.05.2010 passed by in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 15331 of 2010 and issued notice to the petitioner, the deponent and the Advocate, who had signed the Vakalatnama and others to show-cause. However, Mr. Sanjay Kumar @ Manu, learned counsel, was not noticed at that juncture, but he was later on directed to appear before the Registrar General. It appears that Mr. Sanjay Kumar @ Manu, learned counsel, has filed affidavit stating therein that one Arun Kumar Tiwari, an Advocate Clerk, had entrusted him the case. However, Mr. Arun Kumar Tiwari despite having received the notice by his mother did not turn up in inquiry proceeding. The Registrar General has given finding in the report that there had been interpolation in the record. It appears that the petitioner’s Advocate, who had signed the Criminal Miscellaneous petition and the Vakalatnama as well as the deponent, who had sworn the affidavit, are prima 3 facie responsible for the aforesaid act of fraud and interpolation and has recommended for launching criminal prosecution against such persons. In above view of the matter, this Court is also prima facie of the opinion that in this case bail has been obtained by playing fraud and as such, the bail granted by order dated 04.05.2010 to the petitioner in this case is hereby cancelled. The petitioner, if already not in custody, is directed to surrender within two weeks from today before the concerned court or else the court below shall take necessary steps to take him in custody. Let appropriate criminal proceeding be launched against all the aforesaid persons and the abettor of such occurrence, if any, by the Registrar General of this Court. SC ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)