DHANANJAY KUMAR ALIAS DHANANJAY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State and perused the impugned order dated 10.10.2001 by which the learned Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner by Sessions Judge 'sorder dated 16.6.2001 on the ground that petitioner has suppressed the fact that his bail application was pending before the High Court when he had filed the bail petition before the Sessions Judge and also when order for bail was passed on 16.6.2001.

(2.) ON behalf of the petitioner it has been submitted that no doubt, a fact regarding pendency of bail application before the High Court was not mentioned in the bail petition filed before the Sessions Judge and the certificate at the foot of the bail petition wrongly showed that no bail application had been filed and moved in the Hon ble High Court, Patna but such suppression is sought to be explained by alleging that the office of the petitioner 'scounsel in the High Court acted contrary to subsequent instruction not to file the bail application in the High Court and ultimately, the said bail application in the High Court was withdrawn. The learned Sessions Judge has dealt with such explanation in detail and has passed the impugned order after properly considering all the relevant materials including the fact that two certified copies had been obtained of the earlier order rejecting petitioner 'sbail which enabled filing of bail petition before the Sessions Judge, when a bail application was already filed and was pending before the High Court. The learned Sessions Judge has also correctly appreciated and observed that such an important fact is required to be disclosed in the bail petition in view of standing instruction issued by the High Court to achieve a larger public purpose that no suppression of such important facts may take place in bail applications.