IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.1094 of 2010 Amit Ranjan @ Pintu Versus The State Of Bihar ---------------------------------- with Criminal Miscellaneous No.11051 of 2010 Amit Ranjan @ Pintoo Versus State Of Bihar … 20 10.08.2011 In view of the order proposed to be passed by this Court it is necessary to deal with certain facts as under:- Suffice it to say that the petitioner, Amit Ranjan alias Pintu, was granted bail by this Court vide order dated 13.04.2010 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 11051 of 2010. However, the matter was referred to this Bench again by order dated 17.05.2010 passed by another Bench of this Court pointing out that though in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1094 of 2010 case diary was called for on 01.02.2010 and the report on criminal antecedent of the petitioner was also called on 15.03.2010, however, in the meanwhile, the same petitioner filed Criminal Miscellaneous No. 11051 of 2010 with averment in 2 paragraph 2 thereof that he had not moved this Court on any earlier occasion for grant of bail in the concerned case. He was granted bail after hearing the petitioner on 13.04.2010. Both the cases were placed before this Court. Matter was taken up on 01.07.2010 and order was passed issuing notice to the deponent, who had sworn affidavit in both the cases, and learned counsel, who had argued in the aforesaid cases as well as the advocates on record and also the Advocate’s Clerk who had identified the deponent in both the cases. While passing the order it was also recorded by this Court that after getting bail in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 11051 of 2010 a slip was moved on behalf of the petitioner for withdrawal of the earlier case, i.e. Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1094 of 2010. This Court was, prima facie, of the view that there had been suppression of the material fact regarding filing of the earlier case as false affidavit has been sworn in this regard stating that the petitioner had not moved this Court on any earlier occasion. This Court was of the prima facie view that fraud has been committed to get bail order. It has also been noted that 3 the father of the petitioner had sworn affidavit on behalf of the petitioner in the earlier case, i.e. Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1094 of 2010 and the time of release of the petitioner, pursuant to the order dated 13.04.2010 in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 11051 of 2010, he was required to be one of the bailors. Now, after issuance of notice, learned counsel for the petitioner has admitted that the petitioner has been released on bail and father has stood as bailor. Thus, prima facie, it appears that the father of the petitioner was also within the knowledge of both the orders, i.e. one passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 11051 of 2010 and another in the earlier Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1094 of 2010. It is well settled that fraud vitiates the very solemnity of the proceeding. Thus, the Registrar General was required to make an inquiry and submit a report before this Court. Report has been submitted and it has been stated therein that appropriate criminal prosecution should be launched against the petitioner Amit Ranjan alias Pintu, his father Hridayanand Singh, Advocate Clerk B. Kumar and Ajit Kumar Pandey, Advocate. 4 I have heard Mr. Basant Kumar Choudhary, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Shakeel Ahmad Khan, learned senior counsel for the father of the petitioner. They have tried to impress upon this Court that the father of the petitioner may be exonerated because he is an old person and is merely one of the bailors as per the requirement of the order dated 13.04.2010 passed by this Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 11051 of 2010. However, in the opinion of this Court, in view of the fact that the father of the petitioner was also the Pairvikar of the petitioner in the earlier case, i.e. Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1094 of 2010 and was required to be one of the bailors as per the order dated 13.04.2010 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 11051 of 2010, prima facie, it appears that in view of the admitted position that he was in knowledge of the filing of earlier case, he cannot be said to be ignoramus to the subsequent proceeding also wherein he has stood as bailor of the petitioner for his release. Mr. Choudhary, learned senior counsel, then submitted that it appears that the entire thing is the result of larger 5 conspiracy and there is involvement of several other persons in this case. However, in the absence of any specific stand, it would be difficult to say as to who are such persons. But this Court, in view of the report of the Registrar General, directs for launching an appropriate criminal proceeding against the persons who have been described in the report of the learned Registrar General with a further direction that while investigating the case, it would be open for the investigating agency to go into the larger question of conspiracy. Let the Registrar General do the needful for launching the appropriate criminal proceeding. Since fraud vitiates the very solemnity of the proceeding, the order granting bail vide order dated 13.04.2010 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 11051 of 2010 is hereby cancelled and Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1094 of 2010 which remained pending till date is also dismissed. The petitioner is directed to surrender before the court below within three weeks, if he has not already surrendered in the case and in case of failure on the part of the petitioner, let the court below take every 6 possible step to bring the petitioner to the doorstep of justice. Both the matters stand disposed of in the terms as indicated above. SC ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)