RAVI S. DHAVAN, J. ( 1 ) IF the consideration of the bail application has been delayed, then it would be appropriate to set on record that the applicant himself has brought this situation. The order sheet bears out that innumerable adjournments prevented expeditious consideration of whatever relief the applicant was seeking. ( 2 ) THE delay in the Session Court in the matter relating to the consideration of bail or the delay in the grant of it or the rejection of it are not detached and as of date the record shows that the accused and the co-accused cannot be absolved in delaying, the trial itself. ( 3 ) THE occasion for this Court to hear the matter on bail was on 5th June, 1987. The matter was considered at length and the bail application was rejected. This Court had passed the following order: Heard learned counsel for the applicant. At present, there are not externating or mitigating circumstances, when the bail application of other three co-accused, were rejected by this Court on 16th April, 1987 of Uma Shanker, on 13th May 1987 of Messers Kamla Shanker and Ram Naresh, that bail be granted to the applicant Rama Shanker Singh. ( 4 ) IT is, thus, on record that the bail application of the other co-accused were rejected on 16 April, 1987 and 13 May, 1987. ( 5 ) THUS by 5 June, 1987 the bail of all the accused and the co-accused stood rejected by the High Court. ( 6 ) THE accused and the co-accused Messrs Kamla Shanker Singh and Ram Naresh Singh and Uma Shanker and Ram Shanker Singh respectively moved the Sessions Judge (Incharge, Allahabad) on 29 July, 1987, the trial was pending before the 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad-seeking bail, The bail was granted after the Sessions Judge, aforesaid, had heard the counsel for the accused and the State. The reason for granting the bail; delay in the trial. Consequent upon the bail being granted on 29 July, 1987 the accused and the co-accused were released from jail on 4 July, 1987. ( 7 ) ON 14 August, 1987, the Sessions Judge, aforesaid recalled the bail order the case for recalling was serious. The accused and the co-accused, aforesaid, did not truthfully disclose to the learned Sessions Judge, aforesaid, that the High Court had rejected the ball application of all of them without exception. ( 7 ) ON 14 August, 1987, the Sessions Judge, aforesaid recalled the bail order the case for recalling was serious. The accused and the co-accused, aforesaid, did not truthfully disclose to the learned Sessions Judge, aforesaid, that the High Court had rejected the ball application of all of them without exception. Thus, upon material suppression of facts, done willfully with the sole object of procuring bail, the Sessions Judge was constrained to recall the order granting bail as fraud had been committed upon- the Court. Against the order recalling the bail the accused moved the High Court seeking stay of the order of the Sessions Judge so that the order granting them bail may continue. The accused Messrs Kamla Shanker Singh and Ram Naresh Singh invoked the inherent powers of the High Court under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, for purpose of stalling the order of the Sessions Judge, concerned, cancelling the bail. Such an application, by the two accused aforesaid was filed before and considered, by the Honble S. I. Jafri, J. The Honble S. I. Jafri, J. had initially stayed the order of the Sessions Judge, concerned by which the order of bail had been recalled. Subsequently, after a detailed hearing, the Honble Judge rejected the application of the accused Messrs Kamla Shanker Singh and Ram Naresh Singh; the effect of the order being that the High Court declined to interfere with any order passed by the Sessions Judge, aforesaid. In fact the result of the order of the Hontble S. I. Jafri, J. is that the order of the Sessions Judge dated 14 August, 1987 cancelling the bail application of the accused and the co-accused, on which bail was granted on 31 July, 1987 stands. ( 8 ) THE consideration of the application of the co. accused, Rama Shanker Singh by this Court remained pending as learned counsel for the applicant took adjournments to await the result of the hearing before the Court of Honble S. I. Jafri, J. The indulgence of adjournments was granted. After Honble S. I. Jafri, J. delivered the orders on 14 December, 1987 the record of the court along with the orders delivered by Honble Judge, was sought, and are before this Court. After Honble S. I. Jafri, J. delivered the orders on 14 December, 1987 the record of the court along with the orders delivered by Honble Judge, was sought, and are before this Court. ( 9 ) THIS Court has the advantage to see the order delivered by Honble S. I. Jafri, J. learned counsel for the applicant has strenuously urged that this Court ought not to allow the judgment and the orders delivered by Honble Jafri, J. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that this Court ought to take another view. Learned counsel for the applicant has been heard in detail as this Court thought it appropriate that the applicant as an accused was entitled to have his say, even if the submission is that this Court ought to take a different view from a Court of coordinate jurisdiction in like and similar circumstances. Ultimately on 7 January 1988 learned counsel for the applicant made a statement at the Bar that he had submitted all that he had to say and be had nothing further to say. Thus, upon arguments being closed, this Court reserved orders. ( 10 ) THIS Court has examined the record of the case and has also reas the orders delivered by Hontble Jafri, J. on 14 December, 1987. This Court after considering every aspect of the matter does not see any reason to differ from the order of 14 December, 1987, aforesaid It is difficult for this Court to take another view then it is on record that between the applicant who had joined the accused and another co- accused the bail rejected by this Court on 16 April. 1987, 13 May, 1987 and 5 June, 1987 was concealed from the Sessions Judge, aforesaid. This was or relevant fact. The last of the applicants seeking bail was the applicant before this Court on 5 June, 1987. Between 5 June, 1987 and 29 July, 1987 when the second bail application was being presented before the learned Sessions Judge, aforesaid, there could not be a bona fide plea that the trial had been delayed for the duration of the six weeks. The last of the applicants seeking bail was the applicant before this Court on 5 June, 1987. Between 5 June, 1987 and 29 July, 1987 when the second bail application was being presented before the learned Sessions Judge, aforesaid, there could not be a bona fide plea that the trial had been delayed for the duration of the six weeks. But, given the circumstances that the orders rejecting the bail by the High Court being concealed, it gives the impression to the Court considering ostensibly a bail application and in reality a second bail application, as if the accused were languishing in jail without their application for bail being considered at all. This is precisely what had happened in the present case. If the record of the earlier orders of the High Court rejecting the bail applications is concealed, then inevitably, the learned Sessions Judge was under the impression that it was appropriate to grant bail for the first time; the learned Sessions Judge in so far as the applicants are concerned was deliberately put under the impression as if no bail application had been considered earlier by any Court. ( 11 ) IT is difficult for this Court to take a view, different from the one taken by the Honble S. I Jafri, J. as this Court also feels that fraud vitiates all proceedings and the consideration of the bail is no exception. ( 12 ) IN so far as the second bail application moved before the Sessions Judge, aforesaid, is concerned it has rightly been rejected so that no party takes advantage of fraud upon blatant and intentional concealment of facts. The application of the applicant under section 439, 399, 401 and 482 of the Code must be dismissed. .