B. K. YADAV. J. ( 1 ) THIS Criminal Misc. Application No. 13839 A of 1985 has been filed by Moinuddin Khan for cancellation of the bail granted to Sri Anis Khan, applicant in Criminal Misc. Application No. 13141 of 1985 by the order of this Court dated 30-9-1985. ( 2 ) SRI Anis Khan the accused in crime No. 157 of 1984 under section 302 I. P. C. P. S. Munaga, Distt. Ghazipur moved application for being released on bail which was allowed by the aforesaid order dated 30-9-85. In fact he has moved another bail application earlier which was treated to be an application for parole and vide order dated 13-6-85 parole for 2 months was granted to Anis Khan bylfonble S. K. Mukherji, J. After that in another application for bail showing it as First bail Application was filed which was allowed and the accused Anis Khan was released on bail by order dated 30. 9. 85. Present application by Moinuddin Khan for cancellation of the bail granted to Anis Khan on 30-9-85 has been tiled mainly on the ground that the accused has already filed an application for bail as stated above which was allowed on 13-6-85. Subsequent to that he could have filed a second application for bail and not as first application hence accused concealed the fact of his first application for bail being disposed of. In other words order dated 30-9-85 was obtained by accused by concealment of material fact about his first bail application (even thought was an application for parole and only parole was allowed by the order dated 13-6-85 being disposed of. It was second application for bail subsequent to order dated 13-6-85, which was filed and bail was granted by the order dated 30-9-85 even though it was shown in the application as if first application for bail. In other words second application fur bail was filed as first Bail Application and the fact of First Application for bail was concealed hence order dated 30. 9. 85 granting bail to the accused may be cancelled. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the applicant urged that as the second application for bail was filed showing it to be First Bail Application hence material fact was concealed, and the bail was obtained bail granted to the accused (Anis Khan) may be cancelled. 9. 85 granting bail to the accused may be cancelled. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the applicant urged that as the second application for bail was filed showing it to be First Bail Application hence material fact was concealed, and the bail was obtained bail granted to the accused (Anis Khan) may be cancelled. Learned counsel for the accused urged that even though application No. 694 of 1986 was filed but substantially it was an application for parole and in that application only prayer for parole was made which was allowed on 13-6-85. As that was not an application for bail but only for parole hence subsequent application for bail (No. 13141 of 1985) was shown to be First Application for bail. Correct facts were also stated in that Application (Bail application No. 13141 of 1985) in Para 24 it was indicated that a parole for two months was allowed, on 13-6-85. Therefore, it cannot be said that the applicant has concealed any material fact rather after disclosing every material fact the application for bail was allowed which was in fact the First Bail Application. It was next urged that no ground for cancellation of bail was made out and the application deserves to be dismissed. ( 4 ) THE point for determination is as to whether application No. 6946 of 1985 on which parole was granted on 13. 6. 85 was an application for parole or an application for bail? Next point is that what is distinction between an application for parole and application for bail and whether the form of application was decisive or the prayer made therein. ( 5 ) THESE points may be taken up together conveniently. Legal effect of parole is the release from jail for a short term. The effect of an order for granting bail is to release the applicant from jail but usually it is during the pendency of the trial or the appeal, tin an application for cancellation is made and allowed or the trial or the appeal is finally disposed of. It is better to have the connotation of bail. In fact the effect to grant bail is not to set the accused at liberty but to release him to the custody of his sureties. The literal meaning of word bailt is surety. It is better to have the connotation of bail. In fact the effect to grant bail is not to set the accused at liberty but to release him to the custody of his sureties. The literal meaning of word bailt is surety. To put it differently bail means one who procures the release of an accused by standing surety for his appearing in court. The word bail is very often used for security given. It is better to refer to an observation made in the Halsburys laws of England IVth Edition, Volume 11, Para 166: The effect of granting bail is not to set the defendant (Accused) free, but to release him from the custody of law and to entrust him to the custody of his sureties who are bound to produce him to appear at his trial at a specified time and place. The sureties may seize their principal at any time and may discharge themselves by handing him over to the custody of law and he will when be imprisoned. (See Foxall v. Barnett1) In fact the concept of parole has been changing from time to time. The word parole simply means formal promise or word of honour. In 17th Century the word Tparole, was used as an undertaking given by a prisoner of war that he will not try to escape rather if liberated he will return to custody under stated conditions. In 18th and 19th Century the word parole was used to signify the release of the prisoner from jail for a short period. This word was also used to signify the release from jail after serving some period of sentence after conclusion of trial or appeal. In 20th century it appears it, was used primarily in two sense firstly short term release from jail, and secondly release from jail by showing good conduct after order of conviction and sentence at the conclusion of trial or disposal of appeal. According to Jowitts Dictionary of English Law the word parole signifies a promise given by a prisoner of war to return at a time appointed, or not to take up arms till exchanged, the practice of releasing prisoner of war on an undertaking that they will not serve again during the war. Earlier word parolet is used to indicate release of an accused from jail on executing his own personal bond. Earlier word parolet is used to indicate release of an accused from jail on executing his own personal bond. This word was also used in the sense of a word of honour given by the prisoner or an undertaking given by the prisoner that he will not escape after being released rather he would come back after the period specified and would serve the remaining sentence again. The substantial legal effect of bail and parole both may be the release of an accused from the jail. In a Court of law both words parole and bailt have got distinct connotations. The particular form under which the application is filed coupled with prayer made and granted are the decisive factors to indicate its nature. Whereas the legal effect of prayer in an application or writ of Habeas Corpus is to bring the prisoner before the Court and to set him at liberty. The legal effect of bail application is also to get the accused released from Jail, but the application or writ for Habeas Corpus is djfferenl in form and character than the application for bail. ( 6 ) FROM the aforesaid angle the distinction between an application for parole and an application for bail can be appreciated. Applying these principles the first application in which the accused was allowed parole for a period of two months was only an application for parole whereas the second application in which bail was granted was an application for bail. In the subsequent application in which bail was granted by the order dated 30. 9. 1985 it was clearly alleged in para 24 of the affidavit that the applicant was granted parole for a period of two months in Criminal Misc. Application No. 6946 of 1985. ( 7 ) THERE is another aspect of the case. Under the circumstances whether Anis Khan committed any concealment of material fact even though he mentioned in Para 24 of the affidavit about being enlarged on parole. Where one is bound to disclose material fact but he conceals the same it can be said to be concealment of material fact. The fundamental tenates of Anglow American Law of fraud is substantially suppression of truth (i. e. SUPPRESSIO VARY), as well as by suggestion of, falsehood (i. e. SUGGESTIO FALSE) (See Strong v. Repide2 ). These are well known principles of concealment of material facts and fraud. The fundamental tenates of Anglow American Law of fraud is substantially suppression of truth (i. e. SUPPRESSIO VARY), as well as by suggestion of, falsehood (i. e. SUGGESTIO FALSE) (See Strong v. Repide2 ). These are well known principles of concealment of material facts and fraud. Applying them to the present case as on behalf of accused it was disclosed in Para 24 of the affidavit filed in support of the subsequent application that in the earlier application parole for two months was granted it cannot be said that accused Anis Khan has concealed material fact or committed any fraud. As an inescapable corollary the first application moved on behalf of accused was substantially and also in practical form an application for grant of parole, whereas the subsequent application was in form and character an application for bail in which the fact about parole being granted earlier was also disclosed in Para 24 of the affidavit. Subsequent application for bail was correctly shown as first application for bail. In case the bail would have been granted or rejected by the first application in that event it could be said that the first application for bail was disposed of in that event subsequent application would have been shown as the second application for bail. But in fact no bail was granted on the first application which was an application for parole and the subsequent application was in fact an application for bail and the same was correctly shown as first application for bail. Treating it to be the first bail application the bail was granted to accused Anis Khan. Under the circumstances of the case it cannot be said that the accused was guilty of concealment of material fact or that he suppressed the fact about the parole for a period of 2 months granted to him. ( 8 ) AS the application for cancellation of the bail was pressed only on the ground of concealment of the material fact and no other grounds were urged hence I am disposing of this application only on one point namely the first application was for parole and the next one was the application for bail and no concealment of material fact was made. Fact of parole being granted was already mentioned in Para 24 of the affidavit filed in support of application for bail. Fact of parole being granted was already mentioned in Para 24 of the affidavit filed in support of application for bail. In view of the discussions made herein-before the application for cancellation of bail fails and is dismissed. .