High Court Refuses to Grant Bail; Suppression of Information Amounts to Fraud upon Court
In a recent judgment, the Calcutta High Court, presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Subhendu Samanta, refused to set aside an order passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ghatal, Paschim Medinipur, which had cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner and held that Suppression of Information Amounts to Fraud upon Court. The case involved Sk. Farid alias Fariduddin, who had filed a criminal revision against the said order.
The petitioner, through his counsel, contended before the High Court that the Sessions Judge’s order was illegal and irregular. It was argued that the Sessions Judge had misinterpreted the provision of Section 439(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) and had come to an erroneous conclusion. The petitioner’s counsel further claimed that other accused persons in the case had already been granted bail, making the cancellation of the petitioner’s bail unnecessary. They also argued that the Sessions Judge had failed to consider the facts and circumstances of the case properly.
On the other hand, the counsel for the private opposite party, acting as the de facto complainant, submitted that the Sessions Judge’s order was justified. They argued that the petitioner had suppressed the fact that his earlier bail prayer had been rejected by the High Court, constituting a fraudulent practice upon the court. The complainant’s counsel further alleged that the petitioner had employed various dilatory tactics to delay the trial of a barbaric murder case.
After hearing the arguments and examining the impugned order, the High Court found that the petitioner had made a false declaration on affidavit regarding the rejection of his earlier bail prayer by the High Court. The court emphasized that applicants seeking bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. were duty-bound to disclose the status of any previous bail applications pending or rejected by the higher court. The court stated that the suppression of such information amounted to fraud upon the court.
The High Court held that the power to grant or cancel bail under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. was discretionary. In this case, the Sessions Judge had correctly exercised its jurisdiction, and there was no illegality in the impugned order. The High Court rejected the petitioner’s contention that the order was illegal and irregular.
The judgment emphasized the importance of maintaining judicial discipline and avoiding differences of opinion between the High Court and Sessions Court regarding bail matters. The High Court highlighted that it was the duty of the petitioner to inform the Sessions Judge about the fate of his earlier bail application. The Court concluded that the suppression of the rejection of the earlier bail prayer constituted a fraudulent practice upon the court.
Therefore, the High Court dismissed the criminal revision, stating that it lacked merit. The court disposed of the connected applications and vacated any orders of stay that might have been passed during the pendency of the criminal revision.
This judgment serves as a reminder to applicants seeking bail to provide accurate and complete information regarding their previous bail applications, ensuring transparency and preventing fraudulent practices upon the court.
Sk. Farid @ Fariduddin. Vs. The State of West Bengal.
