IBRAHIM MIAN Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the Court. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the State.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that all these petitioners had been granted bail by the trial Court but subsequently, bail of these petitioners were cancelled, vide order dated 17.4.2010 on the ground that the petitioners at the time of grant of bail had suppressed the fact that the prayer for similarly situated co-accused has been rejected by the Court and also on the ground that the petitioners has been extending threat to the witnesses. The said order has been challenged in this application.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that so far the first ground relating to for suppression of fact is concerned, that cannot be said to be suppression of the fact as the fact relating to rejection of the prayer of the co-accused was there on the record and the prosecution could have disclosed before the Court but since it was not disclosed by the prosecution, the petitioners cannot be said to have suppressed the fact and that so far other ground regarding tampering of evidence is concerned, the statement made on behalf of the informant and others before the police that they are being threatened is quite vague.