Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State and perused the impugned order dated 10.10.2001 by which the learned Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner by Sessions Judges order dated 16.6.2001 on the ground that petitioner has suppressed the fact that his bail application was pending before the High Court when he had filed the bail petition before the Sessions Judge and also when order for bail was passed on 16.6.2001. 2. On behalf of the petitioner it has been submitted that no doubt, a fact regarding pendency of bail application before the High Court was not mentioned in the bail petition filed before the Sessions Judge and the certificate at the foot of the bail petition wrongly showed that no bail application had been filed and moved in the Hon ble High Court, Patna but such suppression is sought to be explained by alleging that the office of the petitioners counsel in the High Court acted contrary to subsequent instruction not to file the bail application in the High Court and ultimately, the said bail application in the High Court was withdrawn. The learned Sessions Judge has dealt with such explanation in detail and has passed the impugned order after properly considering all the relevant materials including the fact that two certified copies had been obtained of the earlier order rejecting petitioners bail which enabled filing of bail petition before the Sessions Judge, when a bail application was already filed and was pending before the High Court. The learned Sessions Judge has also correctly appreciated and observed that such an important fact is required to be disclosed in the bail petition in view of standing instruction issued by the High Court to achieve a larger public purpose that no suppression of such important facts may take place in bail applications. 3. Having given anxious consideration to the entire facts and circumstances, this Court finds no good ground to set aside the impugned order. While arriving at this conclusion this Court has been guided by the fact that interference with the order passed by learned Sessions Judge on account of regard for the bail granted earlier on merits will send wrong signals and may lead to similar suppression with impunity in other cases. Accordingly, this revision application is dismissed. While arriving at this conclusion this Court has been guided by the fact that interference with the order passed by learned Sessions Judge on account of regard for the bail granted earlier on merits will send wrong signals and may lead to similar suppression with impunity in other cases. Accordingly, this revision application is dismissed. Interest of justice, however, requires an observation that upon arrest or surrender as a result of the impugned order, the petitioner would be entitled to apply for bail afresh and if such an application is filed then the same should be considered on its merits without being influenced or prejudiced by this unfortunate and wholly avoidable incident which has led to the cancellation of petitioners bail.