Judgment:
A.S. Naidu, J.
1. Invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C., this case has been filed with a prayer to cancel the bail granted by this Court in favour of opposite party No. 1 in BLAPL No. 9500/05 mainly on the ground that vital facts were suppressed from this Court by the said opposite party.
2. Admittedly the said opposite party No. 1 is an accused in G.R. Case No. 608/05 pending in the Court of the SDJM, Puri. It is alleged that he committed offences under Sections 419/420 IPC and Section 3 of the SC & ST (PA) Act. The prayer for bail of the said opposite party No. 1 was rejected by the Sessions Judge. Puri, vide order dated 1.11.2005 in B.A. No. 898/05. He filed BLAPL No. 9368/ 05 before this Court on 14.11.2004 enclosing a free copy of the aforesaid order of the Sessions Judge dated 11.11.2005. BLAPL No. 9368/05 was taken up on 16th January, 2006 when the informant in the aforesaid G.R. Case entered appearance and opposed the prayer for bail. After hearing the learned Counsel for both sides this Court vide order dated 16.1.06 passed the following order :-
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State.
Perused the case diary and other materials. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail at this stage and dispose of the BLAPL giving liberty to the petitioner to move before the learned SDJM, Puri in G.R. Case No. 608/2005 once again if there is any changed circumstances. If such a petition is filed the same shall be disposed of afresh.
But then it appears that said accused-opposite party No. 1 had filed another Bail Application before this Court on 21st November, 2005, registered as BLAPL No. 9500/05 enclosing a certified copy of the order of rejection of his prayer for bail passed by the Sessions Judge, Puri. The certificate furnished on the said Bail Application clearly stated that the matter out of which the said Bail Application arose was never before this Court. Said BLAPL No. 9500/05 was listed for orders on 17th January, 2006 and bail was granted to the accused-opposite party No. 1 with certain conditions.
3. On coming to know about this fact, the informant has filed the present petition. This Court after hearing learned Counsel for the petitioner, directed issue of notice to the accused-opposite party No. 1 to appear before this Court in person and file affidavit explaining reasons for furnishing a wrong certificate on the bail petition and the reasons for suppressing vital facts from the Court. Pursuant to the said order, accused-opposite party No. 1 has appeared in Court today in person and has filed an affidavit inter alia taking the stand that he had no knowledge about filing of BLAPL No. 9368/05 and that the advocate who was appearing for him before the Court below had got the said BLAPL filed in this Curt through some of his relatives. He submitted that he did not commit any mistake intentionally.
4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and have heard accused-opposite party No. 1 in person. Fact remains, the Vakalatnamas filed in both the BLAPLs had been executed by accused-opposite party No. 1 himself and there is no dispute about his signatures. It further appears that one of the said Vakalatnamas had been obtained from accused-opposite party No. 1 while he was in Court Hazat as the same was attested by the CSI, District Court, Puri; whereas the other one had been obtained from him while he was in jail custody and the same was attested by the Jailor concerned. A true copy of the rejection order was annexed to the first Bail Application; whereas a certified copy of the said order had been annexed to the latter Bail Application. Thus the plea taken by the accused-opposite party No. 1 that he had no knowledge about filing of BLAPL No. 9368/ 05 cannot be accepted. It is apparent from the materials available before this Court that the fact BLAPL No. 9368/05 had been filed by accused-opposite party No. 1 and this Court had rejected the said BLAPL was not brought to the notice of this Court while filing or moving BLAPL No. 9500/05.
5. Law is well settled that if an accused obtains a bail order by misrepresentation or by suppression of vital facts, it will be open to the aggrieved party to approach the Cburt for cancellation of bail on that ground. Convention mandates that a party filing a subsequent bail application should state by way of certificate on the Bail Application with regard to his earlier Bail Application, if any. Judicial discipline also requires that the fact with regard to filing of any earlier Bail Application should be brought to the knowledge of the Court while a Bail Application is moved with a view to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. Such practice shall also encourage the litigants to choose Courts and create an unhealthy tradition and will also encourage them to take their chance. If successive Bail Applications in the same case are disposed of by different Benches, there may be conflicting decisions. The Supreme Court in the case of Harjit Singh v. State of Punjab : 2002CriLJ571 , had deprecated such practice.
6. In the case at hand, admittedly the second Bail Application being numbered 9500/05 had been filed and moved without bringing to the notice of the Court that the earlier BLAPL No. 9368/05 had been filed by the same accused and the prayer for bail had been rejected. Thus there was clear breach of judicial discipline. The plea taken that the accused had no knowledge about filing of two successive Bail Applications cannot be accepted for the reasons enumerated above. In view of the fact that vital materials were suppressed from this Court and the fact that an earlier Bail Application was filed and disposed of by this Court was not brought to the notice of this Court while filing subsequent BLAPL No. 9500/05. I have therefore no hesitation to cancel the order passed in BLAPL No. 9500/05 granting bail to accused-opposite party No. 1, and I order accordingly. I further direct the SDJM, Puri to take appropriate steps for apprehension of accused-opposite party No. 1 and to proceed with the case in consonance with law.
The CRLMA is accordingly disposed of.