Krishna Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28224 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-67 Year-2022 Thana- CHARPOKHARI District- Bhojpur ====================================================== KRISHNA YADAV SON OF LATE MUNDRIKA YADAV @ MUNDRIKA SINGH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- PS- CHARPOKHARI, DISTTBHOJPUR ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ravindra Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Rina Sinha, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 03-05-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

By way of present miscellaneous application, the petitioner seeks modification of the order dated 01.02.2023 passed in Cr. Misc. No.40885 of 2022 by which the petitioner had been granted bail by this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been granted bail vide order dated 01.02.2023 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 35309 of 2022 but the bail bonds of the petitioner could not be accepted by the court below on the ground that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent by stating that the petitioner bears clean antecedent whereas in light of the conditions imposed

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28224 of 2023(2) dt.03-05-2023 2/3 in the aforesaid order of this Court, learned court below has verified the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and found one criminal antecedent against the petitioner and accordingly, the petitioner could not be released. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that due to inadvertence, criminal antecedent of the petitioner could not be brought to his notice while the case was being heard. He further submits that there is no deliberate or intentional latches on the part of the petitioner rather it is a case of slip of sight. Hence, the case of the petitioner may be considered sympathetically in the interest of justice.

Taking note of submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court would observe that the petitioner has tried to conceal the fact of his criminal antecedent in order to obtain privilege of bail from the Court which appears to be a matter of suppression of material fact. Therefore, this Court would rely on Section 362 of the Cr.P.C., which is quoted herein-below:

"362. Court not to after judgment. Save as otherwise provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, no Court, when it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case, shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28224 of 2023(2) dt.03-05-2023 3/3 or arithmetical error."

In view of intent of Section 362 Cr.P.C., this Court is not inclined to modify the order dated 01.02.2023 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 40885 of 2022 with analogous case. Accordingly, the prayer for the petitioner is refused and petition stands dismissed.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) brajesh/- U T