Introduction:

The Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court recently cancelled the anticipatory bail of Ramesh Kumar, a lower division clerk in the Indian Air Force, on grounds of misrepresentation and withholding material facts during the bail proceedings. The anticipatory bail, granted in 2023, pertained to charges of causing grievous hurt leading to permanent loss of vision in the victim’s left eye. The court observed that the accused had failed to disclose the inclusion of Section 326 IPC (voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means) in the charges, which were added based on the medical report of the victim. Justice Farjand Ali, while allowing the application for cancellation of bail, emphasized the severity of the injury and the accused’s failure to present a full and accurate account of the facts.

Arguments of Both Sides:

The applicant argued that the anticipatory bail was obtained by suppressing the material fact of the addition of Section 326 IPC after the victim’s condition worsened. The victim, who initially suffered injuries under Section 323 IPC (hurt) and Section 336 IPC (endangering human life), later lost vision in his left eye due to the accused’s actions. The applicant also highlighted that no cross-case existed as claimed by the accused during the bail proceedings. This alleged misrepresentation undermined the judicial process, warranting cancellation of the bail. The respondent-accused, however, contended that the anticipatory bail was granted based on the facts presented at the time and that the addition of grievous hurt charges was subsequent to the medical report. The defense emphasized that the accused was a public servant in the armed forces, had not misused the liberty granted, and no complaints were reported against him since the granting of bail. Further, the counsel argued that canceling the bail would be prejudicial, given the lapse of over a year.

Court’s Judgement:

The Rajasthan High Court, after reviewing the case records, found merit in the applicant’s arguments and noted that the accused’s counsel had misrepresented key facts during the anticipatory bail proceedings. Justice Farjand Ali observed that while the initial charges did not include grievous hurt, the subsequent medical report established the victim’s permanent loss of vision in the left eye, leading to the addition of Section 326 IPC. The court emphasized that neither the counsel for the accused nor the prosecution had brought this critical development to its attention during the original bail hearing. The court underscored the seriousness of the injury and highlighted the lack of a cross-case as claimed by the accused. Justice Ali further remarked that withholding such significant facts misled the court into granting anticipatory bail, thereby necessitating its cancellation. However, considering the accused’s position as a public servant and the time elapsed since the bail order, the court provided the accused an opportunity to surrender before the trial court and file a regular bail plea. It directed that the accused not be arrested until January 21, 2025, ensuring a fair opportunity for him to seek relief while addressing the misrepresentation issue. The application for cancellation of anticipatory bail was thus allowed.