JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Original complainant Balbir Ram s/o Khyali Ram has filed this application for cancelling the bail granted to the respondent no. 2 Pala Ram @ Pritpal by this Court on 16.11.95. Original accused Pala Ram @ Pritpal had earlier filed bail application, bearing S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1076/95 which was dismissed on 5th July, 95 by my brother Shri R.R Saxena, J. While rejecting the bail application, it was made clear that the petitioner will be at liberty to file fresh bail petition after the statements of injured Sohanlal and the Doctor are recorded. However, it is stated at the bar by the learned counsel for the original complainant that the statements of the witnesses Sohanlal and the doctor are still not recorded and another bail application was preferred before the learned Sessions Judge, bearing Bail Application No. 61/95. That application came to be rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh on 10.10.95. Against that order the original accused Pala Ram filed S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Petition No. 2295/95 suppressing the fact of filing of his earlier bail application No. 1075/95 and the order of rejection passed by this Court on 5.7.95 in that matter with the clarification that the petitioner (accused) may file fresh bail application after the statements of Sohanlal and the doctor are recorded. That apart, in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Petition No. 2295/95 a specific statement made in the bail application that "No such bail petition has previously been filed before this Hon'ble Court." If correct facts were brought to the notice of this Court in subsequent bail petition, perhaps I would not have entertained that bail application and granted the bail to the accused Pala Ram in absence of any fresh circumstances in favour of the accused. 3. The entire record of earlier bail petition bearing S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Petition No. 1076/95, which was rejected on 5.7.95 by Shri R.P. Saxena, J. and S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Petition No. 2295/95 which was granted by me on 16.11.9 and of this present bail petition, bearing S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Petition No. 49/95 for cancelling the bail granted by this Court on 16.11.95 in favour of the respondent No. 2 Pala Ram @ Pritpal, is very much before me. 4. Bail Petition No. 2295/95 which was granted by me on 16.11.9 and of this present bail petition, bearing S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Petition No. 49/95 for cancelling the bail granted by this Court on 16.11.95 in favour of the respondent No. 2 Pala Ram @ Pritpal, is very much before me. 4. Going through the entire record of all the three petitions, I am fully satisfied that the respondent no. 2 Pala Ram @ Pritpal has obtained the order of bail from me on 16.11.95 in his S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Petition No. 2295/95 by suppressing the material fact, namely, regarding rejection of his earlier bail petition by this Court only few months before i.e. 5th July, 95. Therefore, this bail application (sic) is required to be allowed and the bail granted to the respondent no. 2 Pala Ram @ Prit Pal is required to be cancelled. In ordinary circumstances, before cancelling the order passed in favour of the respondent-accused, I would have heard him by giving notice to him. But, I am of the view that such persons are not entitled to any hearing before passing any adverse order against them. Till the notice goes to the accused and the matter is heard, they will remain outside the jail, which is not in the interest of justice. If bail granted in favour of the respondent accused is not ? cancelled forthwith, then it would amount to a failure of justice. Because other accused would also like to obtain bail orders in such manner, which would never be in the interest of justice. 5. In view of the above discussion, this petition is allowed. The order passed by me on 15.11.95 in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Petition No. 2295/95 granting bail to the accused- respondent no. 2 Pala Ram @ Prit Pal is set-aside. The respondent No. 2 Pala Ram @ Prit Pal is directed to be taken in custody forthwith. 6. The learned Sessions Judge is directed to see to it that the accused Pala Ram is arrested and immediately taken into judicial custody forthwith. His bail bonds granted earlier stand cancelled.Petition allowed. *******