SHEO NATH ROY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER No. 1 Sheo Nath Roy moved for regular bail in Cr. Misc. No. 3387 of 2001 alongwith some other co -accused persons but his prayer for bail was rejected by this Court on 13.2.2001 observing that the same was being rejected presently. Thereafter, he again moved for bail before this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 30563 of 2001 and his prayer for bail was again rejected on 26.11.2001 with a direction to Court below for recording order on the point of commitment of case to the Court of Session without delay preferably within a month from the date of receipt of the order and it was further observed that trial of petitioner should be taken up immediately thereafter and if on framing of charges, non -official witnesses are not examined, he may renew his prayer for bail but after first moving in the Court below. The prayer of petitioner No. 2 Vishwanath Roy for anticipatory bail was not pressed as it became infructuous and his application filed in this Court numbered as Cr. Misc. No. 34144 of 2000 on 18.4.2001 was dismissed as not pressed and his prayer for regular bail was rejected in Cr. Misc. No. 15626 of 2001 on 4.7.2001 with an observation that petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after one year.

(2.) AFTER rejection of prayer of bail of both the petitioners by this Court in different applications filed on their behalf separately on different dates, as stated above, petitioner No. 1 Sheo Nath Roy filed a bail petition before the Court below on 1.6.2002 and petitioner No. 2 Vishwanath Roy alongwith Pradip Rai who was also one of the accused persons in the case on 3.7.2002. Both these petitions were heard together by Court below on merit on 11.7.2002 and both the petitioners alongwith co -accused Pradip Rai were granted bail by Court below. Co -accused Pradip Rai before filing the bail application alongwith petitioner No. 2 Vishwanath Roy on 3.7.2002 before the Court below had filed Cr. Misc. No. 8746. of 2002 before this Court on 20.3.2002 with prayer of his bail. On 1.8.2002, learned counsel of co -accused Pradip Rai sought permission from this Court to withdraw the aforesaid Cr. Misc. No. 8746 of 2002 submitting that co -accused Pradip Rai has already been granted bail by the Court below. According him the permission to withdraw, the aforesaid Cr. Misc. No. 8746 of 2002 was dismissed by this Court as withdraw on the same day but this Court directed the office to call for a report from the Court below whether, in fact, co -accused Pradip Rai has been granted bail and if so to enclose copy of order granting bail to him. In reply, the Court below reported that co -accused Pradip Rai in his petition filed before the Court below had not disclosed that his prayer for bail was pending before this Court and concealing this fact, he obtained the bail from the Court below. From the report of the Court below, it appeared that alongwith co -accused Pradip Rai, both these petitioners were granted bail and it further appeared that so far petitioner No. 1 Sheo Nath Roy is concerned, he, in his earlier separate petition, had already disclosed that his prayer for bail was earlier rejected in Cr. Misc. No. 30563 of 2001. This Court did not consider the explanation of the Court below satisfactory in respect of co -accused Pradip that he had not disclosed before the Court below that his prayer for bail was pending before this Court and also that his prayer for bail was earlier rejected by this Court because as per the own report of Court below, petitioner No. 1 Sheo Nath Roy inspite of disclosing his fact in the bail petition filed before the Court below that his prayer for bail was earlier rejected by this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 30563 of 2001 was granted bail by the Court below. This Court observed that had co -accused Pradip Rai disclosed the fact of rejection of his prayer for bail earlier by this Court and his another bail petition was pending before this Court, it would not have taken any note by the Court below in granting bail to him as it was done in the case of petitioner No. 1 Sheo Nath Roy who was granted bail by the Court below inspite of his disclosure that his prayer for bail was earlier rejected by this Court. This Court directed the matter to be placed in administrative side of the Court before the Standing Committee. It appears that when reports from Court below in respect of co -accused Pradip Rai was called for, the Court below issued show cause notices to co -accused Pradip Rai and petitioners and, thereafter, cancelled their bail granted to them on 11.7.2002 by his order dated 17.12.2002 against which the petitioners have come before this Court in this revision.

(3.) RECORD of co -accused Pradip Rai in which report from Court below on certain points was called for has been placed and from which it appears that alongwith report, the Court below has annexed bail petitions filed by both the petitioners and it appears that on 1.6.2002, petitioner No. 1 Sheo Nath Roy filed the petition of bail on 3.7.2002, a joint petition on behalf of both the petitioners and co -accused Pradip Rai was filed. In the petition filed on 1.6.2002 on behalf of only petitioner No. 1. Sheo Nath Roy, rejection of his prayer by this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 30563. of 2001 is mentioned but there is no mention of Cr. Misc. No. 3387 of 2001 in which his prayer tor bail was rejected on 13.2.2001 but so far petition dated 3.7.2002 jointly filed on behalf of both the petitioners and co -accused Pradip Rai is concerned, I find that there is no mention that prayer of any of them was earlier rejected by this Court whereas the fact is that prayer for bail of all the three was earlier rejected by this Court in different applications. I, therefore, find that so far petitioner No. 2 Vishwanath Roy is concerned, he did not even whisper any thing about the rejection of his prayer for bail earlier by this Court and he completely concealed this fact from the Court below when he, joining with petitioner No. 1 and co -accused Pradip Rai, filed bail application before the Court below on 3.7.2002 on the basis of which he was granted bail by Court below on 11.7.2002. Argument on his behalf that he had not disclosed any fact in the Court below while moving bail is not correct.