RAM PAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Cri. Appeal No. 527 of 1988 was filed in this court on behalf of Ram Pal Singh, Bhav Prakash, Virendra and Rajendra against the judgment and order dated 9-3-88 passed by Sri P.C. Mathur, II Additional Sessions Judge, Aligarh in S.T. No. 373 of 1986, convicting the appellant Ram Pal Singh under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Bhav Prakash, Virendra Singh and Rajendra Singh appellants under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing each of them to undergo life imprisonment. The appeal was admitted and bail was granted to Bhav Prakash, Virendra and Rajendra whereas the prayer for bail on behalf of Ram Pal Singh was ordered to be considered on receipt of the record by Hon. H.C. Mital, J. by his order dated 11-3-88. Thereupon, the appellants Ram Pal Singh, Bhav Prakash, Virendra and Rajendra filed another Cr1. appeal No. 849 of 88 against the aforesaid judgment and order dated 9-3-1988 passed by Sri P.C. Mathur, II Additional Sessions Judge, Aligarh in S.T., No. 373 of 1986 before this court by suppressing the fact that an appeal was already filed and admitted on behalf of the aforesaid appellants, by Hon. H.C. Mital, J. on 11-3-88 and three of them, namely, Bhav Prakash, Virendra and Rajendra were granted bail by the Court. It was also suppressed that the prayer for bail on behalf of Ram Pal Singh was deferred for consideration till the receipt of the record by Hon. RC. Mital. J. This court after hearing Sri Devendra Swarup, the learned Counsel for the appellants admitted the appeal and granted bail to all of them on 15-4-88. It may be mentioned that the earlier appeal filed before Hon. H.C. Mital, J. was through Kundan Singh, Advocate.

(2.) Later on an application for cancellation of bail of the appellants was filed in this court on 26-8-88 by Sri Vinai Singh, learned Counsel for the complainant Har Pal Singh, stating that the appellants had suppressed the material facts, from the knowledge of the court and consequently they had obtained a subsequent bail order for all of them. It was prayed that the subsequent order admitting the appeal and grant of bail to the accused on 15-4-1988 be recalled.

(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and after giving my utmost consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case, I consider it just and proper to recall my order dated 15-4-88. It is quite apparent that in order to obtain bail for appellant Ram Pal Singh a second Appeal alongwith prayer for bail for all the appellants deliberately filed and in this manner the appellants Ram Pal Singh succeeded in getting bail for himself as well by this court though for the consideration of his prayer for bail, the record was summoned by Hon. H.C. Mital. J. on 11-3-88.