Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 501 (ORI)

Rabindra Kumar Bardhan v. State of Orissa

2005-08-25

L.MOHAPATRA

body2005
ORDER 25.8.2005 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite parties 2 to 4. 2. This application has been filed for cancellation of bail granted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Jagatsingh¬pur on 30.7.2003. Case of the petitioner is that the opposite parties 2 to 4 had earlier approached this Court in BLAPL No.2389 of 2003 for grant of anticipatory bail and by order dated 1.5.2003 this Court rejected prayer for anticipatory bail and directed the opposite parties 2 to 4 to surrender and move for bail. Without complying with the aforesaid order the opposite parties 2 to 4 moved the learned Additional Sessions Judge for grant of anticipatory bail again vide Bail Application No.287 of 2003. On 14.7.2003 said application for grant of anticipatory bail was rejected. Thereaf¬ter another application was again filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. by the opposite parties 2 to 4 before the said Additional Ses¬sions Judge vide Bail Application No.367 of 2003 and the prayer for anticipatory bail was allowed vide order dated 30.7.2003. Further case of the petitioner is that the fact of rejection of prayer for anticipatory bail by this Court as well as by the learned Additional Sessions Judge earlier on 14.7.2003 had been suppressed and in the impugned order the opposite parties were granted anticipatory bail. Considering the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court had called for the records. 3. From BLAPL No.2389 of 2003 filed before this Court it appears that the opposite parties 2 to 4 had filed the said application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. and prayer for anticipa¬tory bail was rejected on 1.5.2003 and the said opposite parties were directed to surrender and move for bail. Learned counsel for the said opposite parties does not dispute that Bail Application No.287 of 2003 was filed before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jagatsinghpur for grant of anticipatory bail and the same was also rejected on 14.7.2003. From the records of Bail Applica¬tion No.367 of 2003, it appears that the said opposite parties suppressed the above fact and moved an application again just few days after the earlier rejection order. It further appears that though the learned Additional Sessions Judge had rejected prayer for anticipatory bail on 14.7.2003, entertained another applica¬tion for the self same relief on 16.7.2003 and granted anticipa¬tory bail on 30.7.2003. It further appears that though the learned Additional Sessions Judge had rejected prayer for anticipatory bail on 14.7.2003, entertained another applica¬tion for the self same relief on 16.7.2003 and granted anticipa¬tory bail on 30.7.2003. It is, therefore, very clear that the opposite parties deliberate suppressed the material facts while moving second application for grant of anticipatory bail in which the impugned order was passed. The very same Additional Sessions Judge having rejected an application for anticipatory bail on 14.7.2003, could not have entertained second application on 16.7.2003 and allowed the same on 30.7.2003. However, it is stated that the concerned Additional Sessions Judge has already retired in the meantime. It is stated by the learned counsel for the opposite parties 2 to 4 that after the impugned order dated 30.7.2003 was passed, charge-sheet was submitted and the said opposite parties have been released on regular bail under Section 437 Cr.P.C. by the concerned Magistrate. Under the circumstances, I am, prima facie, of the view that the opposite parties 2 to 4 are guilty of suppressing material facts while moving application for anticipatory bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jagatsinghpur vide Bail Application No.367 of 2003. 4. I, accordingly, dispose of this application directing the learned S.D.J.M., Jagatsinghpur to draw up an appropriate proceeding against the opposite parties 2 to 4 for filing false affidavits by suppressing materials facts on 16.7.2003 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jagatsinghpur in Bail Applica¬tion No.367 of 2003. The records of Bail Application No.367 of 2003 as well as Xerox copies of the orders passed by this Court in BLAPL No.2389 of 2003 be immediately sent to the learned S.D.J.M., Jagatsinghpur for taking further action at his end. Urgent certified copy of the order be granted on proper application. Application disposed of.