KETABUL SK Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. The petitioners have approached this Court praying for pre-arrest bail. It appears that pre-arrest bail was earlier granted by the learned Sessions Judge by order dated 26th June, 2012. However, such order was cancelled by the said Judge on 24.7.2012 on the sole ground that the petitioners had failed to disclose that an application praying for self-same relief was pending before this Court.

(2.) Mr. Ayan Bhattacharyya, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners very candidly submits that the petitioners had not intimated the Sessions Judge regarding the pendency of this application before this Court. He, however, argues that such failure did not affect the jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge to consider the prayer for pre-arrest bail on merits which the said Judge, in fact had done. In support of his contention, he relied upon on a decision of the Apex Court Monhan Singh vs. Union of Territory, Chandigarh, 1978 2 SCC 366.

(3.) Mr. Sanyal, learned Additional, Public Prosecutor submits that the failure to disclose the pendency of the application, for self-same relief before this Court, had embarrassed the Court in considering the self-same relief. He further draws our notice, to paragraph 8 of this application wherein this fact had been admitted by the petitioners.