S. I. JAFRI, J. ( 1 ) KAMLA Shanker Singh and Ram Naresh Singh applicants have preferred the above mentioned application under section 439 read with sections 482, 399/40 1 Cr. P. C. ( 2 ) A few facts bearing upon this case are that accused Kamla Shanker Singh, Ram Naresh Singh, Uma Shanker Singh and Rama Shanker Singh, all inhabitants of village Manikpur, Police Station Handia District Allahabad, have been committed to the Court of Sessions for the murder of one Dhan Bahadur Singh, Block Pramukh of Handia Block, Allahabad on 17/9/1987 at about 6. 30 a. m. near Lakasha Garhi Market, P. S. Handia, District Allahabad. ( 3 ) THE charges against the accused have also been framed by 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad on 4/8/1987. However, no evidence could be recorded so far and at present, the trial is pending in the court of 6th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Allahabad. Here it is worthy of mention that according to the explanation furnished by Shri S. M. Pandey, IX Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad, all the accused have absconded and they have not put in appearance tm 26/10/1981 before the Court of 7th Additional Sessions Judge. The next date fixed for appearance of the accused in the court of 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad was 10/11/1987. ( 4 ) IN the instant murder case, one Jagadhar Singh complainant lodged a report of the occurrence at Police Station Handia at 12. 30 p. m. on 17/9/1981 the same day in which all the four accused enumerated above, were nominated as assailants of the deceased Dhan Bahadur Singh. In the first instance, accused persons moved their application for bail before the Sessions Judge and after rejection of their bail application; the accused persons filed their bail applications in the High Court. The bail application of accused Uma Shanker was the first to be rejected on 29/4/1987 by Hon. RP. Shukla, J. on merits. Subsequently, the application for bail preferred on behalf of Kamla Shanker Singh and Ram Naresh Singh applicants was rejected by this Court on 13. 5. 1987 after hearing both the parties on merits. Lastly the bail application of Rama Shanker Singh was rejected by Hon. R. S. Dhawan J. on 5/6/1987. Shukla, J. on merits. Subsequently, the application for bail preferred on behalf of Kamla Shanker Singh and Ram Naresh Singh applicants was rejected by this Court on 13. 5. 1987 after hearing both the parties on merits. Lastly the bail application of Rama Shanker Singh was rejected by Hon. R. S. Dhawan J. on 5/6/1987. ( 5 ) KAMLA Shanker Singh and Ram Naresh Singh applicants and co-accused Uma Shanker Singh and Rama Shanker Singh filed a joint second bail application on 29/7/1987 in the court of Incharge Sessions Judge, Allahabad, although on that date, the trial of the accused persons was pending in the court of 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad. The learned incharge Sessions Judge after hearing the learned counsel for the accused and also the learned counsel for the State, granted bail to all the aforesaid four accused persons on 31. 8. 1987 on the sole ground that there had been undue delay in the trial of the applicants and that the applicants were in jail for the last 10 months and consequently, all the four accused persons were released on bail from jail on 4. 8. 1987. ( 6 ) COMPLAINANT Jagadhar Singh filed an application for cancellation of the bail grant ed to the accused persons in the court of Incharge Sessions Judge, Allahabad on 10. 8. 1987, stating therein that the applicants had deliberately suppressed and withheld the factum of rejection of their bail by the High Court in their bail application. The complainant had also ankles the certified copies of the orders refusing bail to the accused by the High Court. Thereupon, the learned Incharge Sessions Judge immediately issued notices to the accused persons to show came as to why their bail be not cancelled but the service of notices could not be effected upon the accused personally. However, notices were served on Sri Ejazuddin, advocate one of the counsel for the accused persons. ( 7 ) THE aforesaid application for cancellation of bail filed by Jagadhar Singh was taken up by Sri Brahma Singh 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad on 14. 8. 1987 in the capacity of Incharge Sessions Judge. However, notices were served on Sri Ejazuddin, advocate one of the counsel for the accused persons. ( 7 ) THE aforesaid application for cancellation of bail filed by Jagadhar Singh was taken up by Sri Brahma Singh 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad on 14. 8. 1987 in the capacity of Incharge Sessions Judge. The Incharge Sessions Judge had cancelled the bail granted to all the four accused persons including the applicants being satisfied that the factum of rejection of the bail application of the applicants by the High Court had deliberately been suppressed by the accused and the order of bail has been obtained by the accused by playing fraud upon the Court. ( 8 ) AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid order dated 14/8/1937 passed by Incharge Sessions Judge. Allahabad, the applicants Kamla Shanker Singh and Ram Naresh Singh filed a Criminal Misc-cumsecond Bail application under section 439 read with section. 482 and 399/40 1 Cr. P. C. whereupon the impugned order dated 14/8/1987 passed by the Incharge Sessions Judge, Allahabad, was stayed by this Court. ( 9 ) I have heard Sri J. S. Sengar, learned counsel for the applicants as well as Sri V. C. Tiwari, learned counsel for the complainant. I have also heard the learned counsel for the State. ( 10 ) IT was contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that the Incharge Sessions Judge had erred in cancelling the bail of the applicants by this order dated 14. 8. 1987 granted to them on 31. 7. 1987 on the sole g round that the accused persons did not mention in their bail application before him that their bail application was earlier rejected by the High Court. It was further contended by him that the Incharge Sessions Judge had passed the order for cancellation of bail of the applicants if violation of the principles of natural justice and the said is non-est. To buttress his contention, reliance has been placed on Chandra Prasad Upadhya v. District Inspectors of School Jaunpur. The learned counsel further submitted that the order of cancellation was passed by the learned discharge Sessions Judge without affording adequate opportunity to contest the prayer for cancellation of bail. To buttress his contention, reliance has been placed on Chandra Prasad Upadhya v. District Inspectors of School Jaunpur. The learned counsel further submitted that the order of cancellation was passed by the learned discharge Sessions Judge without affording adequate opportunity to contest the prayer for cancellation of bail. The learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on Parmajit Singh v. State of U. P. wherein it has been held that normally, an opportunity ought to be afforded to an accused released on bail to be heard before his bail is cancelled. Reliance has also been placed On Bhagirath Singh Judeja v. State of Gujarat where it has been had that very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an application seeking cancellation of bail. ( 11 ) SRI V. C. Tiwari, learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the learned Incharge Sessions Judge has not at violated the Principles of natural justice by cancelling the bail of the applicants in as much as the applicants had secured the bail by playing fraud upon the court and under the circumstance, the order of the Sessions Judge cancelling the bail of the applicants does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference by this court. The learned counsel for the complainant has referred to section 44 of Evidence Act in support of his contention which is reproduced below: Fraud or collusion in obtaining judgment, or in competency of the court may be proved. Any part to a suit or other persons may show that any judgment, order or decree which is relevant under sections 40, 41 or 42 and which has been proceed by the adverse party was delivered by the court not competent to deliver it or was obtained by fraud or collusion. Consequently, it was Urged by the learned counsel that the Incharge Sessions Judge was perfectly justified in cancelling bail of the applicants having been satisfied that the accused had secured the order for bail by playing fraud upon the court. It was also submitted that once the Sessions Judge is satisfied that an order for ball had been obtained fraudulently, the Court is empowered to cancel the bail of the accused sue motu. However, the learned counsel added that in the instant case, show cause notice was served upon the counsel for the applicants. It was also submitted that once the Sessions Judge is satisfied that an order for ball had been obtained fraudulently, the Court is empowered to cancel the bail of the accused sue motu. However, the learned counsel added that in the instant case, show cause notice was served upon the counsel for the applicants. ( 12 ) SRI V. C. Tiwari further submitted that the second bail application filed by the applicants before the Incharge Sessions Judge was not maintainable as the matter of bail stood tied up with the High Court after the rejection of bail application by the High Court. Reliance has been placed on Km. Ranjana, R. Massey v. Ujjawal Prakash Lal and State4 where it was held by a Honble Judge of this court that a bail application having been rejected by the High Court, the Sessions Court was not competent to grant bail. ( 13 ) SRI Shivaji Mishra, learned counsel for the State submitted that the present application was not maintainable as the applicants were absconding from the court of 6th Addl. Sessions Judge, Allahabad where their trial in the case is pending and on account of their absconding, further proceedings in the case are held up. ( 14 ) I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. It is no doubt true that an accused deprived of his personal liberty, if the bail granted to his is cancelled but if the bail of an accused is cancelled on cogent and material grounds, it cannot be held that by cancelling the bail of the accused, the personal liberty of the accused is out-raged and principles of natural justice are violated. In the present case, it ill not disputed by the applicants that their ban application was rejected by the High Court prior to their filing second bail application before die Incharge Sessions Judge, Allahabad. It has also not been disputed that they did not mention the factum of rejection of their ban application by the High Court In their second bail application before the Incharge Sessions Judge Allahabad. The factum of rejection of their bail application by the High Court was a relevant and significant circumstance which should have been mentioned by the applicants in their second bail application filed before the Incharge Sessions Judge, Allahabad. The factum of rejection of their bail application by the High Court was a relevant and significant circumstance which should have been mentioned by the applicants in their second bail application filed before the Incharge Sessions Judge, Allahabad. Under the circumstance, I hold that the applicants had deliberately withheld the factum of rejection of their ball application by the High Court in their second bail application filed before the Incharge Sessions Judge In order to obtain bail by playing fraud upon the court. The Incharge Sessions Judge was absolutely justified in recalling his order dated 3 1. 7. 1987 by his order dated 14. 8. 1987 having been satisfied that the bail order was obtained by practicing fraud upon the court. The learned Incharge Sessions Judge had rightly taken into account the fact of rejection of the bail having been suppressed by the applicants as relevant in view of the provisions contained in section 44 of the Evidence Act. Under the circumstances violation of principles of natural justice is not at all involved in passing the order of cancellation of bail of the applicants by the learned 1st. Addi. Sessions Judge by his order dated 14/8/1987. ( 15 ) A Sessions Judge has no doubt a concurrent jurisdiction in the matter of bail under section 439 Cr. P. C. and is competent to entertain the bail application of accused on fresh grounds even after the rejection of the bail application by the High Court but the power has to be exercised by the Sessions Judge in exceptional circumstances. Normally the Sessions Judges should keep their hands off in bail applications which stand rejected by the High Court. Under the circumstances, I uphold the order dated 14. 8. 1987 passed by Sri Brahma Singh, Incharge Session Judge Allahabad cancelling the bail application of the applicants granted to them by his order dated 31/7/1987. In the result, the application filed by the applicants under sections 439 read with section 482 Cr. PC 399/401 Cr. P. C. is rejected. The order dated 28. 8. 1987 passed by this Court staying the operation of the order dated 14/8/1987 passed by Sri Brahma Singh, Incharge Sessions Judge, Allahabad is vacated. .