(1.) HEARD the petition filed by the complainant seeking cancellation of bail granted to the 1st Respondent by this Court earlier.
(2.) SUBMISSION of the Petitioner's Counsel is that, this Court granted bail to the 1st Respondent on 12.10.10 in Crl.P. No. 5008/10 and the said bail order was obtained by the 1st Respondent by suppressing the material facts namely, the rejection of bail application filed by the very same Respondent earlier and even in the bail application, no mention was made about the rejection of earlier bail petitions. Therefore, the 1st Respondent having suppressed the said facts was not entitled for ball at the hands of this Court. In this regard, learned Counsel referred to the various petitions, which were filed earlier and rejection by this Court.
(3.) ON the other hand,: learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent -accused submits that, the trial is getting delayed and this Court while rejecting bail on one occasion had directed, the trial court to dispose of the case within six months and now the case is yet to be over and delay is on account of the complainant and his wife. As for as witnesses being threatened is concerned, submission made is that the witnesses who said to have been threatened were examined before the court below as far back on 09.06.10 and therefore, no substance lies to the complaint that is lodged with the police on 07.11.2010.