- (1.) We have considered the submission as pointed out by Mr. Bagchi, learned Counsel for the opposite party No.2, as well as Mr. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) Mr. Singh has taken a plea that earlier an application was filed by MR. Bagchi's client under section 438 of the Cr. PC and the same was rejected as not pressed and subsequent thereto, another application for anticipatory bail was filed by the opposite party No.2 suppressing the materials fact before the learned Trial Court. Mr. Bagchi has pointed out that it is an usual practice in the Trial Court but it appears to us that in the second application the opposite party No.2 himself stated in the affidavit filed before the Trial Court mentioning that no application under section 438 Cr. PC filed by him earlier. The said statement itself is a ground for rejection of the contention as has been tried to put forward before this Bench by Mr. Bagchi. We have perused the affidavit filed by Mr. Bagchi's client at the time of getting anticipatory bail and the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner for cancellation of bail, in our considered opinion, the present application for cancellation of bail should be allowed on the ground of misstatement made by the opposite party No.2.
(3.) We also accept the contention made on behalf of the petitioner for cancellation of bail on the ground of suppression of material facts from the Court. Accordingly, the application being CRM No. 16853 of 2009 is allowed and the same hereby disposed of. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties.;