- (1.) A. S. Tripathi, J. This revision is preferred against the order dated 14-7-1993 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhansi in Bail Cancellation application No. 12 of 1993 arising out of Crime No. 232/92 under Section 302, I. P. C. Police Station Sipri Bazar, district Jhansi.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the revisionist. Learned A. O. A. who is being heard for the state stated that he need not file any counter affidavit. The applicant was facing trial in a case under Section 302,i. P. C. His bail application was earlier considered by the learned Sessions Judge and also by the High Court. It was rejected by the High Court on 9-2-1993. Later on the learned Sessions Judge, Jhansi granted bail to the other revisionist on the ground that the case was not committed to the court of sessions for more than nine months. After the bail was granted and the applicant was released it was brought to the notice of the Sessions Judge that a fact was concealed that the case was not committed when the application for bail as disposed of. Later on it came to the notice of the Court that the case was already committed on 14-9-1993. On that ground alone the bail was cancelled observing that a material fact was concealed by the applicant. In the affidavit filed alongwith the revision it has been alleged that the applicant has not concealed this fact. The applicant had no knowledge when the bail application was being disposed of that the case was committed and when application for bail was moved the case was not committed. It was committed only when the application was taken up for disposal on merits in the intervening period. This is not a case of which concealment on the part of revisionist could be assigned.
(3.) ACCORDINGLY the cancellation of bail by the Sessions Judge on 14-7-1993 on the ground that the material fact was concealed by the applicant is not justified on record. The applicant had already moved an application for bail when the case was net yet committed. When the application was taken up for disposal only then it was found that in intervening period the case was committed. Therefore, it could not be taken to be a concealment of material fact. Accordingly, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think that once the bail was granted to the revisionist and he had not misused the same during the period he was on bail, he may be released on bail on furnishing fresh sureties.;