VINOD PRASAD, J. Aggrieved by the bail granting order dated 29-3-2005 passed by Honble C. P. Misra, J. , since retired, in Criminal Misc. Second Bail Application No. 4241 of 2005, Raja Bhaiya v. State of U. P. , in crime number 319 of 2004 under Sections 302/307/ 34/504 IPC, the informant Arvind Kumar Pal @ Kalian has filed this bail cancellation application under Section 439 (2) Cr. P. C. The notices were issued to respondent accused Raja Bhaiya which has been served on him and he is being represented by Sri Vivek Misra advocate. 2. I have heard Sri Satish Trivedi, learned senior Counsel assisted by Sri M. C. Chaturvedi, Advocate on behalf of applicant informant and Sri Rajesh Kumar Misra brief holder of Sri Vivek Misra advocate Counsel for the accused respondent on his instructions and under his permission. 3. Before coming to the rival submissions harangued by contesting sides in support of their contentions a resume of necessary facts are registered here. A FIR was lodged by the applicant informant Arvind Kumar Pal @ Kallan at police station Ait, District Jalaun on 1-9-2005 at 4 a. m. with the allegation that there was a fight between his family and the family of accused respondent Raja Bhaiya two years before regarding a wall which even though was removed by the father of the informant applicant but nurtured a grudge in the mind of the respondent. Father of informant applicant Ram Shankar Pal, a field officer in Land Development Bank, Manautha, had come to his house on vacation and was sitting on a chair in the evening on Saturday outside his house when Raja Bhaiya respondent had uttered that he will murder him. On 31-8- 2005 at 12 a. m. in night when the applicants family members were asleep Raja Bhaiya respondent, armed with a DBBL Gun, Rajendra, Sunil @ Mister and Shyamji son of Raja Bhaiya all three armed with country made pistols came to the house of the applicant and started vetuparising them from outside their channel gate. On hearing the abuses and shouts the father of the informant came to the channel gate then, at the instigation of rest of the three accused Rajendra, Sunil and Shyamji, respondent accused Raja Bhaiya shot at the father of informant from his DBBL gun as a result of which Ram Pal sustained injuries and fell down. On hearing the abuses and shouts the father of the informant came to the channel gate then, at the instigation of rest of the three accused Rajendra, Sunil and Shyamji, respondent accused Raja Bhaiya shot at the father of informant from his DBBL gun as a result of which Ram Pal sustained injuries and fell down. The aunt (Bua) of informant Veer Kuwar wife of Khadag Singh and her daughter Neha came to the injured Ram Shankar Pal and the accused respondent shot and caused them injuries as well. The incident was witnessed by the informant applicant and one Khudai. Ram Shankar Pal father of the applicant informant lost his breath on reaching the hospital and the two injured were admitted in emergency. The applicant went to the police station Ait and lodged the FIR (Annexure No. 1), which was registered as crime number 319 of 2005 under Sections 302/307/34/504 IPC. The injury reports of Veer Kuwar and Km. Neha and post-mortem report of the deceased (Annexures No. 5, 6 and 7) indicates that all of them had sustained gun shot injuries. 4. In the aforesaid crime number, first of all Suneel @ Mister approached this Court under Section 439 Cr. P. C. for grant of his bail vide Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 18515/04. The said bail application of Suneel alias Mister was allowed by Honble K. N. Sinha, J. on 19-11-2004. The bail granting order reads thus: "heard Sri Prabha Shanker Pandey and Sri M. A. Siddiqui, learned AGA. Admittedly the role of the applicant is that of exhortation. The actual shot was fired by non-applicant Rajabhaiya. Considering this, the applicant is admitted to bail. Let the applicant Sunil alias Mister be released on bail in crime No. 319 of 2004, under Sections 302, 307, 504/34 IPC, Police Station Ait, District Jalaun, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned. " 5. Subsequently bail application on behalf of respondent Raja Bhaiya being Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2295 of 2004 was moved in this Court. The said bail application of Raja Bhaiya was heard by Honble C. P. Mishra, J. and His Lordship was pleased to reject the said bail application on 27-1-2005 by passing the below quoted order: "heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned. AGA, and learned Counsel for complainant. Bail Application No. 2295 of 2004 was moved in this Court. The said bail application of Raja Bhaiya was heard by Honble C. P. Mishra, J. and His Lordship was pleased to reject the said bail application on 27-1-2005 by passing the below quoted order: "heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned. AGA, and learned Counsel for complainant. The accused applicant Raja Bhaiya is said to have committed an offence under Section 302/307/34/504 IPC, vide case crime No. 319/04, P. S. Ait, District Jalaun. It is submitted that co-accused Sunil against whom allegation is there of exhortation has been granted bail by this Court on 9- 11-1994 in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 185157 /04 and as per affidavit filed before Courts below in this regard that all the accused persons had shot fire on the deceased and caused injuries to the injured vide Annexure 4 and as such the applicant is also entitled for bail. Learned Counsel for complainant and learned AGA have, however, opposed the prayer for bail as specific allegation is against the applicant in this regard for having caused fire-arm injuries to both the deceased as well as injured in this occurrence. Considering the aforesaid facts and submissions it is evident that the incident had taken place in the night of 31-8-2004, for which the report was lodged at 4 a. m. in that very night naming the applicant accused specifically with the alleged role of firing attributed to him to have caused injuries to the deceased as well as injured person both in the FIR and in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr. P. C. in this regard unlike other co-accused Sunil who has been granted bail granted bail on the ground of exhortation attributed to him in this connection and so far as affidavit is concerned, for which it has been submitted by learned Counsel for the complainant as it was filed before the learned lower Court by Counsel who had no such instructions in this regard and the enquiries are also pending in respect of that and in view of the aforesaid facts and specific allegation being there against the applicant consistently both in the FIR as well as in the statement under Section 161 Cr. P. C. and in the affidavit also, his case is not at par with co-accused and as such his case is not fit for bail. P. C. and in the affidavit also, his case is not at par with co-accused and as such his case is not fit for bail. Since the applicant is in jail for long and the trial has not been concluded so far, the trial Court shall make necessary endeavour to dispose off the case within six months from the date of communication of this order before it by keeping in view the provisions of Section 309 Cr. P. C. With the aforesaid direction the bail application of the applicant is hereby rejected. The office is also directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned trial Court. " 6. Subsequent to the rejection of the first bail application another notice of the second bail application of the respondent was given on 17-2-2005 being notice No. 2990 of 2005, just after nearly 21 days of rejection of the first bail application. This second notice was registered as Criminal Misc. Second Bail Application No. 4241 of 2005. In this second bail application a supplementary affidavit was filed by Counsel for the respondent appending therewith ballistic report, serologist report, enquiry report (Question Answer), chik report, inquest report, Injury reports of Veer Kuwar and Km. Neha, Police Form No. 13, and copy of G. D. No. 27. This second bail application of the respondent was opposed by Sri M. C. Chaturvedi advocate as Counsel for the informant. This second bail application, however, was allowed on 29-3-2005 by passing the impugned order by the same bench in the following terms: "heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned AGA. List revised. None appeared on behalf of the learned Counsel for the O. P. complainant. The accused-applicant Raja Bhaiya is involved in the offence under Sections 302, 307, 34 and 504 IPC, in crime No. 319 of 2004, P. S. Ait, District Jalaun. This is second bail application. The first bail application was rejected by this Court on 27-1-2005. It is submitted that this second bail application has been filed on behalf of the accused applicant on the ground that as per facts mentioned in the supplementary affidavit filed in this regard i. e. Ballistic Report Serologist Report, Chik Report, inquest report and other papers vide Annexure Nos. The first bail application was rejected by this Court on 27-1-2005. It is submitted that this second bail application has been filed on behalf of the accused applicant on the ground that as per facts mentioned in the supplementary affidavit filed in this regard i. e. Ballistic Report Serologist Report, Chik Report, inquest report and other papers vide Annexure Nos. S. A. to S. A. 10 of the affidavit, there is no mention of country made pistol therein and there is variation in mentioning of the time of lodging the FIR which shows that nobody has seen the occurrence and the incident had taken place in the mid night of 31-8-2004 and there is common allegation against the applicant as well as other three co-accused persons named in the FIR for having caused the fire are injuries to the deceased who had, however, suffered single fire-arm injury in this connection as per post-mortem report and other co-accused persons have already been granted bail by this Court as stated in para 3 of the affidavit and there is no report of the Ballistic Expert showing specific allegation made in the FIR against the applicant in this regard and no witnesses have also been examined in this case inspite of the direction given by this Court vide order dated 27-1-2005 and in view of fresh ground and affidavit given by the injured herself making common allegation against all the accused persons for having caused fire-arm injuries to the deceased and since all co-accused persons namely Sunil alias Mister has been granted bail by this Court and Rajendra Singh and Shyam Ji have been granted bail by the Court below as stated in para 14 of the affidavit, the applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity. Let accused-applicant be released on bail in the above crime case, subject to his furnishing personal bond with two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned. " 7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of granting bail this cancellation application has been filed by the informant applicant in which a counter-affidavit has been filed by Sri Vivek Mishra but on his behalf the matter was argued by Sri Rajesh Mishra advocate as his brief holder. 8. " 7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of granting bail this cancellation application has been filed by the informant applicant in which a counter-affidavit has been filed by Sri Vivek Mishra but on his behalf the matter was argued by Sri Rajesh Mishra advocate as his brief holder. 8. I have heard Sri Satish Trivedi learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri M. C. Chaturvedi on behalf of the informant applicant and Sri Rajesh Kumar Mishra holding brief of Sri Vivek Mishra learned Counsel for the accused respondent and learned AGA in opposition and have perused the record of Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 18515 of 2004 Sunil alias Mister v. State. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 22195/04 Raja Bhaiya v. State (first bail application) and Criminal Misc. Second Bail Application No. 4241 of 2005, Raja Bhaiya v. State (second bail application) and also the present bail cancellation application. 9. Sri Satish Trivedi learned senior Counsel assisted by Sri M. C. Chaturvedi argued that the respondent Raja Bhaiya who is main shooter of the aforesaid crime number, has got bail from this Court by giving a false statement of fact. They contended that there was no new circumstance after rejection of the first bail application of the applicant and in fact in the second bail application only that material was reproduced by the applicant, which was already in the knowledge of the respondent accused. They contended that a perusal of the bail rejection order of the applicant clearly indicates that the case of the respondent accused was distinguishable from the case of rest of the accused as he was the main shooter. This allegation was never said to be good buy by the prosecution and all the prosecution witnesses made a statement to that effect. They further contended that neither the serologist report nor the inquest report nor the question answer form nor the chik FIR nor the non-mentioning of country made pistol in the inquest report nor the bail of co-accused persons nor the affidavit filed by the injured person assigning the same role to all the accused were new ground for reconsideration of bail by this Court. They contended that all these grounds were present at the time of rejection of the bail application of the respondent at the first instance and therefore the above mentioned facts did not constitute new facts for granting bail to the respondent accused. They contended that all these grounds were present at the time of rejection of the bail application of the respondent at the first instance and therefore the above mentioned facts did not constitute new facts for granting bail to the respondent accused. They further contended that the bail of the respondent was rejected by this Court on the ground that he was the main shooter and so far as he was concerned the case of the prosecution remained consistent. They further argued that it was wrongly stated by the respondent Counsel at the time of seeking bail that no evidence was recorded even after the direction given by this Court. They contended that after the bail rejection order dated 27- 1-2005 the trial was proceeding in accordance with the direction given by this Court and the charge was framed on 1-3-2005 (Annexure No. 8 ). They further contended that it was the respondent accused who was delaying the trial and not the prosecution and in this respect they invited the attention of the Court on Annexure No. 9 which is the copy of application given by ADGC who is seized of the trial where in it is mentioned that it was the respondent accused who was delaying the trial. They also submitted that the pairokar of the respondent accused were threatening the prosecution side for which also an application was filed in the Court vide Annexure No. 10 of the affidavit filed in support of this bail cancellation application. They also submitted that till 29-3-2005 two witnesses of fact were already examined by the trial Court vide Annexure No. 11 to this bail cancellation application and therefore a wrong statement of fact was stated at the bar that the trial was not proceeding. Concludingly they submitted that the respondent obtained bail by false statement of facts and he is tampering with evidence and therefore his bail should be cancelled, as he does not deserve bail. 10. Learned AGA as well as Sri Rajesh Misra Counsel for the respondent contended that the bail granting order is justified and should not be disturbed. They contended that those facts, which were not pleaded in the first bail application, could form the basis of second bail application. 10. Learned AGA as well as Sri Rajesh Misra Counsel for the respondent contended that the bail granting order is justified and should not be disturbed. They contended that those facts, which were not pleaded in the first bail application, could form the basis of second bail application. They further contended that in the fitness of things the trial Court be directed to expedite the trial and conclude it instead of canceling the bail of the accused respondent. 11. I have considered the rival contentions canvassed by both the sides. It is not in dispute that the papers filed alongwith the supplementary affidavit did not made any material change in the prosecution case so far as the present respondent accused is concerned. It is also not in dispute that the affidavit filed by the injured was considered at the time of rejecting the bail of the applicant at the first instance. It is also not in dispute that on the day when the bail of the respondent was granted by this Court the trial was in progress and the statement of two witnesses of the prosecution was already recorded. It is also not disputed that the statement that the trial was not in progress while getting bail in the second attempt was not a correct statement of fact and in fact the contents of Annexure No. 11 is not denied specifically. It is also not in dispute that the case of the applicant was not a case of parity with the other co-accused persons as there was nothing on record to suggest that there was any change in the allegation that the respondent was the main shooter and had caused the death of the deceased and injuries to the two injured persons a lady and a child. Thus it is apparent writ large on the face of the record that the respondent had obtained bail by a wrong statement of fact and on no new material and that he was also tampering with witnesses. 12. Thus I am of the opinion that the respondent accused does not deserve to remain on bail. 13. Resultantly this bail cancellation application is allowed. 14. The bail of Raja Bhaiya s/o Tulsi Ram, r/o village Kharusha, P. S. Ait, District Jalaun, in crime No. 319/04, under Sections 302, 307, 34 and 504 IPC, P. S. Ait, District Jalaun is cancelled. 13. Resultantly this bail cancellation application is allowed. 14. The bail of Raja Bhaiya s/o Tulsi Ram, r/o village Kharusha, P. S. Ait, District Jalaun, in crime No. 319/04, under Sections 302, 307, 34 and 504 IPC, P. S. Ait, District Jalaun is cancelled. The trial Court IV Additional Sessions Judge, Jalaun at Orai is directed to get Raja Bhaiya arrested forthwith and send him to jail. He is directed to comply with this order within a period of three weeks from today and send compliance report to this Court. He is further directed to expedite the trial and make an endeavour to conclude it within two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Bail allowed. .