Judgment 1. This is the matter regarding replies of show cause notices issued to Sukhalu Manjhi @ Sukalu Manjhi, an accused of Sessions Trial No. 645 of 1999 arising out of Naubat-pur Police Station Case No. 182 of 1997 and his Advocate Shri Pramod Kumar who filed this petition for bail for accu-sed Sukhalu Manjhi @ Sukalu Manjhi during the pendency of an another bail application which was filed earlier on behalf of accused Sukhalu Manjhi @ Sukalu Manjhi and which was num-bered as Cr. Misc. No. 9844 of 2000. 2. The brief facts of the matter are that accused Sukhalu Manjhi @ Sukalu Manjhi filed bail petition on 11-4-2000 which was numbered as Cr.Misc. No. 9844 of 2000 in which he admitted that his prayer of bail was earlier rejected by this Court on 18-11-1998 in Cr. Misc. No. 24190 of 1998. While Cr. Misc. No. 9844 of 2000 was pending accused Sukhalu Manjhi @ Sukalu Manjhi filed this petition for bail in this court on 26-9-2000. In this peti-tion, he suppressed the fact that he had already filed a bail petition which, as stated above, was numbered as Cr. Misc. No. 9844 of 2000. While Cr. Misc. No. 9844 of 2000 was still pending, accused Sukhalu Manjhi, by order dated 29-9-2000, was granted bail by this Court in this petition. Thereafter, on 28-11-2000, prayer of accused Sukhalu Manjhi @ Sukalu Manjhi for bail in Cr. Misc. No. 9844 of 2000 was rejected. The learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Patna brought to the notice of this Court that he had received two orders, one passed in this petition by which accused Sukhalu Manjhi @ Sukalu Manjhi was granted bail and another passed in Cr. Misc. No. 9844 of 2000 in which he was refused bail. Coming to know this position, the Honble Judge who had refused bail of accused Sukhalu Manjhi @ Sukalu Manjhi in Cr. Misc. No. 9844 of 2000, by his order dated 13-3-2001, was plea-sed to order to place the matter before the Honble Judge (since retired) who had granted bail to accused Sukhalu Manjhi @ Sukalu Manjhi in this peti-tion. Coming to know this position, the Honble Judge who had refused bail of accused Sukhalu Manjhi @ Sukalu Manjhi in Cr. Misc. No. 9844 of 2000, by his order dated 13-3-2001, was plea-sed to order to place the matter before the Honble Judge (since retired) who had granted bail to accused Sukhalu Manjhi @ Sukalu Manjhi in this peti-tion. When this matter was placed before the Honble Judge who had granted bail to accused Sukhalu Manjhi @ Sukalu Manjhi, he on 26-3-2001, passed orders for issuing notice to accused Sukhalu Manjhi @ Sukalu Manjhi to show cause why order dated 29-9-2000 passed in this petition gran-ting bail to him be not recalled and he should not be properly proceeded with in accordance with law for obtaining bail orders by suppressing the fact that he had already filed an another appli-cation before filing this application which was numbered as Cr. Misc. No. 9844 of 2000 and it was further ordered for issuing non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner with a direction to appear before this Court for filing show cause. From different orders thereafter passed, it appears that accu-sed Sukhalu Manjhi @ Sukalu Manjhi, inspite of receipt of notice, did not file reply of show cause and remained absconding but after a long lapse of time, he was arrested on 26-6-2002 and since then he is in jail custody. 3. Accused Sukhalu Manjhi @ Sukalu Manjhi has filed reply to show cause notice stating therein that he was made an accused in Naubatpur Police Station Case No. 182 of 1997 and was taken into custody on 15-7-1998 and his prayer for bail was refused by Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Patna on 3-4-2000 and, thereafter, an advocate of Danapur Civil Court, whose name he does not know, visited the jail and he gave vakalatnama to him for filing an application for bail in the first week of April, 2000 but till August, 2000, he did not receive any information of his case and he thought that no application on his behalf had been filed in this Court. He has further stated that similarly situated some other co-accused per-sons, whose bail was refused by lower Court, were granted bail by this Court and, therefore, he strongly believed that no bail application on his behalf had been filed and in that situation, he entrusted Shri Nawal Kishore Kumar, and gave him vakalatnama for filing granted bail. He has further stated that he had no knowledge that earlier any application on his behalf which was numbered as Cr. Misc. No. 9844 of 2000 was already filed. He has shown his regret for filing this application during the pendency of Cr. Misc. No. 9844 of 2000 and according to him this mistake was not deliberate because he was not informed about the filing of Cr. Misc. No. 9844 of 2000. He has prayed for accepting his show cause and exonerating him from further pro-ceeding. 4. In his reply to show cause, Shri Pramod Kumar, Advocate who filed this application for bail of accused Sukhalu Manjhi @ Sukalu Manjhi, it has been stated that he filed this bail application on the instructions of Nawal Kishore Kumar and the pairvikar of accused Sukhalu Manjhi came to him for filing bail application in the first week of September, 2000 and he, after perusing relevant papers, asked the pairvikar of accused Sukhalu Manjhi @ Sukalu Manjhi to look into the lower Court file to ascertain as to whether after rejection of prayer for bail by Court below, any application on behalf of accused Sukhalu Manjhi @ Sukalu Manjhi was filed in the High Court or any order has been passed and commu-nicated to Court below and in pursuant to his query, the pairvikar again came to him after two weeks and informed that no order regarding Sukhalu Manjhi @ Sukalu Manjhi was passed and commu-nicated to Court below and, thereafter, he drafted this bail petition which was placed for admission on 29-9-2000 and accused Sukhalu Manjhi @ Sukalu Manjhi was grated bail. The Advocate of petitioner has further stated in his show cause that he tenders his unqualified apology if his any action has hurt the prestige and glory of this Court even if unknowingly. 5. The Advocate of petitioner has further stated in his show cause that he tenders his unqualified apology if his any action has hurt the prestige and glory of this Court even if unknowingly. 5. So far the case of Shri Pramod Kumar, Advocate of accused Sukhalu Manjhi @ Sukalu Manjhi who had filed this bail petition is concerned, there is nothing on the record to show that he was having any knowledge that on the day when he filed bail petition for accused Sukhalu Manjhi @ Sukalu Manjhi, another bail petition filed earlier on his behalf was already pending in this Court. It goes without saying that a lawyer engaged on behalf of party gets information about material facts from the party itself and if party is suppre-ssing any fact, for that he would not be held responsible. So, the reply of show cause filed by Shri Pramod Kumar, Advocate is accepted. 6. So far, the case of accused Sukhalu Manjhi @ Sukalu Manjhi is concerned, from different orders passed by this court, I find that he has already been arrested on 26-6-2002 and he has been sent to jail although initially order was passed for showing him cause as to why order dated 29-9-2000 is not recalled and he should not be properly proceeded with but by the same order, non-bailable warrant of arrest was issued against him and in compliance of that order, he has been arrested and has been sent to jail. It amounts that the order dated 29-9-2000 passed by this court in this petition by which he was granted bail has been recalled in spirit. Besides this, this order was procured from this court suppressing the fact that bail petition filed earlier by accused Sukhalu Manjhi @ Sukalu Manjhi was pending and during the pendency of that application, order on 29-9-2000 was passed in this petition. This fact has been admitted by accused Sukhalu Manjhi @ Sukalu Manjhi himself in this reply to show cause. In this view of fact, the order dated 29-9-2000 passed in this petition cannot be allowed to continue and stands with-drawn. Since accused Sukhalu Manjhi has already been arrested and has been sent to jail custody and considering his reply that while he was in jail, he had given vakalatnama to a lawyer who, after filing bail petition on his behalf which was numbered as Cr. Misc. Since accused Sukhalu Manjhi has already been arrested and has been sent to jail custody and considering his reply that while he was in jail, he had given vakalatnama to a lawyer who, after filing bail petition on his behalf which was numbered as Cr. Misc. No. 9844 of 2000, had not informed him about such filing. I do not consider it necessary to take any further action against him. 7. This matter, therefore, stands disposed of.