The Karnataka High Court, while setting aside a bail order, observed that the accused cannot be allowed to take advantage of any order obtained by suppressing facts.

The Court also said that Public Prosecutors are duty bound to supply necessary information to the concerned Court regarding pendency or decision of an earlier bail application as well as the order passed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to the concerned Court.

In that context, the Bench of Justice HP Sandesh observed that, "If any order is obtained by suppressing the fact, respondent cannot be allowed to take advantage of the order setting aside cognizance and get order framing charge quashed. It is also held that victim of offence has as much right to get justice as accused, Court to do complete justice restored order framing charges and directed trial to go on. In the aforesaid case, by suppressing material facts, order was obtained and in the case on hand also material aspects have been suppressed by respondent No.2. Hence, the conduct of respondent No.2 has to be taken note of by this Court."

Counsel Raghavendra Gowda K and Counsel Mohankumara D appeared for the petitioner, while HCGP K Nageshwarappa and Counsel Nanjunda Gowda appeared for the respondents.

The petitioner filed a petition under Section 439(2) of the Cr.P.C, seeking the cancellation of the bail granted to respondent No.2. The petitioner alleged that respondent No.2, a police constable, had promised to marry her but instead sexually assaulted her from 2019 to February 2022. Despite complaints to various authorities, no action was taken. Eventually, she filed a private complaint, leading to an investigation. Respondent No.2 obtained anticipatory bail, which was later cancelled by the High Court. However, he suppressed this fact when obtaining a stay order in a subsequent writ petition. Subsequently, respondent No.2 surrendered and obtained bail again.

The petitioner argued that respondent No.2 misled the courts and played fraud by suppressing crucial facts. She feared for her safety as respondent No.2 had allegedly threatened her earlier. The petitioner sought cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) of the Cr.P.C.

Respondent No.2 contended that he had surrendered and obtained bail legally. He argued that there was no violation of bail conditions and cited precedents to support his case.

The High Court observed that, "Though in the petition, it is mentioned in an ingenious method that bail was cancelled, Trial Court has not ventured to verify the same but proceeded to grant the bail in favour of respondent No.2. The Trial Court also even did not see anything about the order passed by this Court even though in an ingenious method, a reference was made with regard to cancellation of bail and not insisted respondent No.2 to place the said order before the Court and without looking into the order passed by this Court, the Trial Court granted bail in favour of respondent No.2 who suppressed all these material facts."

Subsequently, the Court exercised its powers under Section 439(2) of the CrPC to cancel the bail.

Appearances:

Petitioner: Counsels Raghavendra Gowda K, Mohankumara D

Respondents: HCGP K Nageshwarappa, Counsel Nanjunda Gowda

Cause Title: Shabana Taj vs State of Karnataka & Anr.

Click here to read/download the Judgment


Karnataka High CourtJustice HP SandeshBail

Verdictum News Desk