Gauhati High Court: Bail Won by Fraud or Misrepresentation Can Be Cancelled

The Gauhati High Court has ruled that anticipatory bail obtained through misrepresentation or fraud is liable to be cancelled — reinforcing a key principle in criminal law that courts will not protect accused persons who mislead them to secure relief.

The judgment was delivered by Justice Pranjal Das in a criminal petition (Crl.Pet./1352/2024) filed by Prasun Banik, Director of Himani Agency Private Limited, which operates a Tanishq jewellery showroom in Silchar, Assam.

Also Read: NFR Speeds Up 35 Trains, Cuts Travel Time by 675 Minutes

Banik had filed an FIR alleging that Manna Paul, who was employed as store manager at the showroom, stole jewellery worth ₹1,34,49,610 and subsequently went untraceable.

Paul approached the courts seeking anticipatory bail. His application, placed before the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Cachar, claimed that he had resigned from his position before the alleged theft took place — effectively distancing himself from the crime.

He was granted interim bail on September 7, 2024, which was made absolute on September 19, 2024.

The petitioner challenged the bail order in the Gauhati High Court, arguing that Paul's resignation claim was entirely fabricated.

It was contended that the purported resignation letter had been sent to a wrong email ID, and that Paul had in fact continued his active association with the showroom. Evidence placed before the court included his attendance at showroom events and his presence around the time the offence occurred.

The accused, meanwhile, argued that he had not violated any bail conditions and that there was no valid ground for cancellation.

Justice Pranjal Das, on perusing the case diary, noted several concerning facts:

• The stolen jewellery had not been recovered

• The accused had not cooperated with the investigation

• Custodial interrogation was deemed necessary

The court also examined Paul's own statement and bank records, which indicated that he had taken a gold loan against jewellery, invested the proceeds in the stock market, and subsequently lost the money.

On the question of the false resignation, the court was unambiguous. "The materials annexed by the petitioner also belies the claim that he had resigned from the showroom before the incident. Rather, all the materials, including his statement, prima-facie indicate that the theory of resignation was a false one invented to escape criminal liability," the court observed.

Justice Das held that misrepresentation or fraud in securing bail is a valid and sufficient ground for its cancellation — a principle he found directly applicable to the facts of this case.

"Clearly, the respondent No. 2/accused misrepresented facts amounting to fraud regarding his resignation in securing the bail order. Therefore, on the touchstone of the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the bail granted to the accused deserves to be cancelled," the court stated.

The court exercised both its inherent powers and its concurrent bail cancellation powers alongside the Sessions Court to set aside the relief granted to Paul.

The anticipatory bail order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge under Section 306 BNSS was accordingly cancelled and set aside, and the criminal petition was allowed in favour of the petitioner.