SATISH ALIAS PANDIT Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALLOWED subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of. Crl. M. C. No. 2072/2008 the petitioner has impugned the order dated 20th June, 2008, whereby the bail granted to him, vide order dated 12th June, 2008, was cancelled on the ground that the petitioner had not disclosed the fact that the bail applications of co-accused, Shyam, was dismissed by the Session Court and that another of his bail application was pending in the High Court and thus the petitioner had obtained bail by suppressing material facts. The cancellation of bail was also justified on the ground that the role assigned to co-accused was similar to that of the petitioner and therefore continuation of bail to the petitioner shall result in conflicting findings in the matter. The bail was cancelled in order to have parity with the accused and to avoid alleged conflicting findings in the matter. The Sessions Court while granting bail to the petitioner, vide order dated 12th June, 2008, had considered the role of the petitioner that he along with co-accused took the prosecutrix to Palwal, Haryana and thereafter co-accused Mukul Bhadana took her to Kolkata and raped her, though the petitioner had returned back from Palwal. At the time the bail was granted the petitioner was in custody for about three months.

(2.) THE petitioner has challenged the cancellation of the bail on the ground that he cannot be held guilty of suppression of material facts regarding the rejection of the bail applications of the co-accused Shyam as he was not aware of it, not being a party to bail applications of the co-accused, and it was the duty of the prosecution and the complainant to bring it to the notice of the court. Though the learned Magistrate, while cancelling the bail, admitted that there was lapse on the part of the investigating agency in not informing the court the fact that the other co-accused Shyam?s bail application was dismissed, still the petitioner has been made liable.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has emphatically contended that he was not a party to the bail applications filed by the co-accused Shyam and so he could not have the knowledge about the rejection of the bail application of the co-accused. It is also contended that rejection of the bail application of the co-accused Shyam could not preclude the Court from granting bail to the petitioner and in the circumstances it is contended that there could not be parity between the two cases nor can the bail granted to the petitioner be cancelled on the ground of parity.