Judgment CHOUDHARY S.N.MISHRA, J. 1. This is aa application for cancellation of bail granted in a triple murder case to the accused Ajay Singh, opposite party No. 2 by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Gopalganj in an offence punishable under Section 302 and other ancillary sections of the Indian Penal Code including Section 27 of the Arms Act wherein the opposite party No. 2 is a named accused. The relevant facts for the disposal of this case are as follows : "In the night of the 21st July, 1992 three persons including opposite party No. 2 entered into the house of the informant and 4/5 persons were standing outside. All of them were variously armed with rifles and guns. It is alleged that Upendra Singh and Deepak Singh were armed with rifles, whereas, opposite party No. 2 Ajay Singh, was armed with a gun. Opposite party No. 2 Ajay Singh fired his gun At Dudh Nath Singh hitting on his left thigh. Upendra Singh fired his rifle on Nawal Kishore Singh repeatedly hitting his neck and right arm pit. Deepak Singh fired his rifle on the chest of Kashi Singh. As a result of the aforesaid firings, all the three victims, namely, Dudh Nath Singh, Nawal Kishore Singh and Kashi Singh died at the spot. It is further alleged that in course of the occurrence, the informant also sustained some injuries. The motive for the occurrence is alleged to be that the deceased Dudh Nath Singh had refused to pay Rs. 10,000 to accused Upendra Singh and opposite party No. 2, Ajay Singh to fight out a criminal case in which they were the main accused of committing the murder of one Raj Kishore Mahto in Gopalganj. On 24th July, 1992, the three named, accused persons, namely, Upendra Singh, Ajay Singh (opposite party No. 2) and Deepak Sing appeared before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gopaiganj and jointly filed an application for grant of bail, but the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, refused to grant bail on the ground that the accused persons, who were petitioners before him, were named accused persons in a triple murder case against whom specific allegation and over act had been alleged. Therefore, accused Deepak Singh moved before the Sessions Judge for bail, which was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge on 29-9-1992 on the ground that this is a pre-planned cold blooded murder of three persons by the three named accused against whom specific overt act and the allegations have been made. Opposite party No.2 Ajay Singh and accused Upendra Singh jointly filed an application for bail on 16-10-1992, which was heard by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge on 21-10-1992, who was also Judge-in-charge, Vacation during Annual Vacation, 1992 and while rejecting the prayer for bail on behalf of accused Upendra Singh, he granted bail to the accused Ajay Singh, opposite party No. 2 only on the ground that he had sustained some injuries at the hands of the prosecution party. It is stated that immediately after release on bail, opposite party No. 2, on 30-10-1992 gave a threat to the life of Rajdeo Singh, who is an eye-witness to the occurrence and coerced him to swear an affidavit to the effect that he had not witnessed any occurrence, otherwise he would be taught a lesson. On 4-11-1992, the aforesaid eye-witness, Rajdeo Singh filed an informatory petition regarding that threat given to him by opposite party No. 2 In the court of the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Gopalganj. This petition has been annexed as Annexure-6 to this application. The informant filed an application for cancellation of bail granted to Ajay Singh, opposite party No. 2 which was rejected by the Sessions Judge on the ground that the cancellation application is not maintainable before him as the Court of Additional Sessions Judge is not subordinate to the Court of Sessions Judge. Hence, the application before this Court." 2. Pursuant to show cause notice issued by order dated 21-1-1993 at to why the bail granted to him be not cancelled, opposite party No. 2 Ajay Singh, appeared and filed cause. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the opposite party No. 2 Ajay Singh including the other two named accused, are the main assailants against whom specific allegations and overt act have been alleged. It is a pre-planned cold blooded murder in which three persons have been killed at the spot at the hands of the named accused persons. It is a pre-planned cold blooded murder in which three persons have been killed at the spot at the hands of the named accused persons. It is further submitted that the accused Deepak Singh moved before the learned Sessions Judge for bail, which was rejected and the case of Upendra Singh, Ajay Singh (opposite party No. 2) and that of Deepak Singh, all the named accused in the instant case, stands on the 6ame footing. The occurrence took place on 21-7-1992 and the accused person surrendered on 24-7-1992, but neither any medical report nor any complain was made before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate regarding the injury sustained by accused Ajay Singh (opposite party No. 2) or has been instituted any case against the prosecution party for the alleged assault and injury on his person. The alleged injury report of accused Ajay Singh, dated the 31st of August, 1992 has been doubted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He has submitted that there is no such injury entered in the register maintained in jail. He has alleged that the aforesaid injury report has been obtained in collusion with the jail authorities including the medical officer of the jail concerned. 4. In order to verify the authenticity of the injury report, the injury report register for the period in between July and August, 1992, was called for from the Jail Superintendent. In this connection, the Superintendent as well as the medical officer, District Jail, Gopalganj were directed to appear before this Court alongwith the relevant register. Accordingly, the Superintendent and the medical officer concerned appeared on the 19th of July, 1993 and produced the relevant injury register before this Court. The Superintendent of Jail had frankly admitted before this Court that accused Ajay Singh, opposite party No. 2, was not examined in his presence. From a perusal of the injury register, it appears that the injuries have, no doubt, been mentioned in it against the name of accused Ajay Singh, but the said injuries have been mentioned in an unusual manner and in an unusual place in the said injury register inasmuch as the injuries mentioned in the said injury register do not bear the signature of the doctor. The doctor has accepted the aforesaid position and has stated that the signature might have been left due to paucity of time. The doctor has accepted the aforesaid position and has stated that the signature might have been left due to paucity of time. In sum and substance, the doctor did not give definite reply as to the existence of the entry of the injuries in the injury register in absence of his signature. However, from a very look of the injury report register maintained in the jail produced before this Court, it appears that the alleged entries have not been made in usual course rather the same have been inserted and developed subsequently. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that while rejecting the prayer for bail of one of the accused, namely, Deepak Singh, the learned Sessions Judge has disbelieved the plea of the accused that the opposite party No. 2 has also sustained injury in course of occurrence. The learned Sessions Judge stated in his order that the same is a belated one and thus cannot be relied upon. Learned counsel has then submitted that the opposite party No. 2 Ajay Singh, is a veteran criminal and a terror in the society. Inasmuch as he is involved in several criminal cases and because of his terrorist activities witnesses are not in a position to appear before the Court and give evidence although there are eye-witnesses to the occurrence. Details of the criminal cases in which the accused Ajay Singh, opposite party No. 2 is involved, are montioned in Paragraph 4 of this petition. 5. Again in order to appreciate the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the criminal antecedents of the accused Ajay Singh, opposite party No. 2 by order dated 19-7-1993, a report was called for from the Superintendent of Police, Gopalganj as also from the officer-in-charge of the different police stations mentioned in Paragraph No. 4 of this application through the Superintendent of Police, Gopalganj, with his commeats regarding the authenticity of the reports regarding antecedents of accused Ajay Singh as and when submitted by the officer-in-charge of the different police stations within his jurisdiction. The report was also called for from the Probation Officer of the direct concerned regarding the antecedents of the accused. The report was also called for from the Probation Officer of the direct concerned regarding the antecedents of the accused. It is relevant to quote Paragraph 4 of this application, which is also mentioned in the order dated 19-7-1993 and the same is being reproduced hereinbelow "(i) Gopalganj P.S. case No. 331 of 91 dated 11-11-1991 for offences under Sections 307/324/34/42? of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 27 of the Arms Act; (ii) Manjhagarh Thawe P.S. Case No. 159 of 92, dated 22-7-1992 for offences under Sections 147/149/452/323 of the Indian Penal Code ; (iii) Gopalganj P.S. Case No. 217 of 89, dated 13-10-1989 for offences under Sections 302/307/324/120-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 27 of the Arms Act; and (iv) Gopalganj P.S. Case No. 281 of 89, dated 13-10-1989 for offences under Sections 25 (l)(a)(b)/27/35 of the Arms Act." It may be mentioned here that the report received by the officer-in-charge of the different police stations through the Superintendent of Police, Gopalganj, including the report of the Probation Officer fully support the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the criminal antecedents of the accused. 6 It is submitted with reference to the criminal antecedents that the accused Ajay Singh, opposite party No. 2, being a veteran criminal, is in the habit of threatening the witnesses and as such, the witnesses are not willing to appear before the court because of constant threat of dire consequences given by him and the fear arising therefrom. In support of his submission he has relied upon the informatory petition filed by one of the eye-witnesses, namely, Rajdeo Singh, before the Sub-divisional Magistrate, which is Annexure 6 to the petition as stated above. 7. Mr. Prakash Narayan Pandey, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of accused Ajay Singh, opposite party No. 2, on the other hand, has submitted that the order of the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge granting bail to acccused Ajay Singh, opposite party No. 2 has been passed in exercise of his direction and this Court is not entitled to look into and take aid of the injury register for the purpose of cancellation of bail granted to accused Ajay Singh, opposite party No. 2 by the competent court. He has also submitted that the other co-accused persons have already been granted bail in this case and in that view of the matter, the bail granted to Ajay Singh Opposite Party No. 2, cannot be cancelled by this Court. As regards his criminal antecedents, this accused Ajay Singh (opposite party No. 2) has filed a supplementary counter affidavit in which he has tried to give some explanation as to the institution of the aforesaid criminal cases against him. In course of his agrument, Mr. Pandey has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Aslam Babalal Desai V/s. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1993 SCI, particularly, on Paragraphs 11 and 40 of the said decision. There is no controversy in so far as the principle laid down in the aforesaid decision is concerned. However, in this case, the fact remains that the accused Ajay Singh, opposite party No. 2, being one of the main assailants in this case, obtained bail on representation of wrong facts, which has neither been disclosed at the initial stage when he had surrendered before the Chief Judicial Magistrate nor supported by any authentic document, namely, the injury report register which, in fact has been manufactured subsequently in order to obtain bail and, perhaps, also for creating a plausible defence out of it. 8. From the facts stated above, it is apparent the occurrence took place on 21-7-1992 and accused opposite party No. 2, Ajay Singh, surrendered before the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 24-7-1992 and claims to have been examined by the doctor only on 31-8-1992. He did not whisper even a word about any injury, which he is alleged to have sustained and the learned Sessions Judge, in one of the bail applications filed by one of the three accused persons, namely, Deepak Singh, was rightly disbelieved the story of this accused having received/sustained injury as belated one. The very injury report, dated 31-8-1992 which is Annexure 4 of this petition, goes to suggest that the same is fabricated one and this injury report is the sheet anchor for the accused, Ajay Singh on the basis of which he has been granted bail by the learned ist Additional Sessions Judge during Vacation, 1992. The very injury report, dated 31-8-1992 which is Annexure 4 of this petition, goes to suggest that the same is fabricated one and this injury report is the sheet anchor for the accused, Ajay Singh on the basis of which he has been granted bail by the learned ist Additional Sessions Judge during Vacation, 1992. From a perusal of the order of the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-in-charge, Vacation, it appears that the learned Judge has made out a third case for the accused opposite party No. 2, Ajay Singh, which is neither pleaded earlier not supported by any material evidence. 9. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and after having carefully gone through the materials available on the records of this case including the statement of the Superintendent and the Medical Officer of Gopalganj District Jail, and the reports submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Gopalganj, alongwith the reports of the Officer-in-charge of Gopalganj and Thawe Police Stations placed at Flags P and Q, respectively and that of the Probation Officer, Gopalganj), placed at Flag R about the criminal antecedents of opposite party No. 2 Ajay Singh, I am of the view that the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Gopalganj, has wrongly and illegally exercised his jurisdiction/discretion in granting bail to accused Ajay Singh, opposite party No. 2, by his order, dated 21-10-1992 in bail petition No. 626/92 (which appears from the certified copy to have been signed on 22-10-1992). Accordingly, I hereby cancel the bail granted to this opposite party No. 2, accused Ajay Singh, directing him to positively and unfailingly surrender before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate or before the court in seisin of the case at present, Gopalganj, in Manjhagarh (Thawe) P.S.Case No. 158/92 (G.R. No. 1283/921 within two weeks from today, failing which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate or the court presently in seisin of the case shall take all coercive steps to secure accused Ajay Singh in custody. Let this order be communicated to the court below forthwith. Bail cancelled.