SHARMA, J. - (1.) THIS is an application by complainant Prakash Chand, for cancellation of bail of Radhakishan, granted by this Court,in SB Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 681 of 1991.
(2.) S. B. Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 681/91 was filed by Radhakishan in this Court, on 5th Mar. , 91. In the foot-note of the bail application, it was mentioned that no such bail application had been filed previously. There was foot-note No. 2 to the effect that SB Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 376/91 decided on 8th Feb. , 91, might be tagged with the bail application. In the application for cancellation of bail, the complainant has stated that an earlier bail-application No. 1780/90 had been filed and it was rejected. There was another bail application No. 2261/90, which was rejected by Justice MB Sharma, on 10th Aug. , 90. The complainant has alleged that in his application filed on 5th Mar. , 91, Radhakishan suppressed the filing of the two previous bail applications and their rejection, and that thus, he played a fraud on the Court. As a matter of fact, the facts are that Radhakishan had filed first Bail Application No 1417/90 in this Court, on 8. 06. 90. This first bail application was listed before Justice MB Sharma on 21. 06. 90, and it was dismissed on merits. The second bail application No. 1780/90 was filed on 30. 07. 90, and it was dismissed by me on 28. 07. 90. A third bail application (reciting it as Second Bail Application) was filed by Radhakishan on 17th Aug. , 90. In this bail application, Radhakishan suppressed the filing of Bail Application No. 1780/90 and its rejection on 30. 07. 90. This Bail Application No. 2261/90 was listed before Justice MB Sharma, who rejected it on merits on 30th Aug. , 90. As a matter of fact, SB Cr. Misc. Bail No. 681/91 was thus the fourth bail application, but, it was filed as if it was a first bail application, and a specific note was made that no such application had been filed earlier. In Note No. 2, however, a mention was made of bail application No. 376/91, decided on 8th Feb. , 91. This was of a bail application bearing No. 376/91, decided on 8th Feb. ,91 filed by co-accused. It is thus clear that by suppressing the rejection of the three previous bail applications, Radhakishan played a fraud on this Court, by mentioning in the foot-note that no such bail-application had been filed previously. On behalf of Radhakishan, a reply, along with an affidavit of Radheyshyam Sharma, Clerk, in the office of Shri KK Mehrish, Advocate, has been filed. In the affidavit, Radheyshyam Sharma has stated that on 5th Mar. , 91, a special messenger had come from Bundi and brought with him a duly typed bail-application, along with a letter from Shri Beharilal Gupta, Advocate at Bundi, with a direction to file the same immediately and to get the same listed. Radhey Shyam Sharma searched for Shri KK Mehrish, to obtain his signatures on the same and on the memo of appearance, but, he could not locate Shri Mehrish. He, therefore, got the bail application signed by Shri Sanjay Mehrish, Advocate, and it was presented under a bona fide belief that a Senior Advocate of Bundi had sent the bail application, duly typed, and there had been an omission in appending a note, and therefore, Radheyshyam Sharma made a note in his own handwriting in a bona fide manner that no earlier bail-application had been filed previously.
(3.) THE counsel for Radhakishan showed to me a letter dated 2nd Mar. , 91,sent by Shri Beharilal Gupta, Advocate, to Shri KK Mehrish, Advocate. In this letter, Shri Beharilal Gupta wrote that two co-accused, Nandkishore and Prabhu had already been released by the orders of the High Court, dated 8th Feb. 91, and therefore, he had noted the number of their bail-application from the record of the copy of the bail order. Shri Beharilal Gupta mentioned that if Shri Mehrish did not find it necessary, he should get it removed, or else, the application be filed as early as possible. According to the counsel for Radhakishan, it was under the belief of this letter that Radheyshyam Sharma, Clerk of Shri KK Mehrish, Advocate, made a note that no such bail application was filed earlier. It may be mentioned that the first bail-application of Radhakishan, bearing No. 1417/90, was also signed by Shri Sanjay Mehrish, Advocate, and was presented by him in the Court. Another Bail Application No. 1780/90 was also signed and presented in this Court by Shri Sanjay Mehrish, Advocate. The same was the position with regard to the-Bail Application No. 2261/90, filed in this Court. This makes it more than clear that even Shri Sanjay Mehrish, Advocate, was very well aware that three previous bail applications had been presented in this Court and were rejected. In all these previous bail applications. Servshri KK Mehrish and Sanjay Mehrish were Advocates representing Radhakishan. In such circumstances, when the previous facts were very well known to them and despite that Shri Sanjay Mehrish had signed on a foot-note that no such bail-application was filed previously, he practised a fraud on the Court. He, by signing the foot-note, became an active party to the fraud, and, the affidavit of Radheyshyam Sharma is meaningless. When a bail order is obtained from this Court by playing active fraud on it, it cannot be allowed to stand. I, therefore, allow this application for cancellation of bail and order that the bail granted to Radhakishan by this Court on 13th Mar. , 91, in SB. Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 681/91, is cancelled; and do hereby direct to the Deputy Registrar (Judicial), to take Radhakishan immediately in custody, and to remand him to Judicial Custody in connection with Crime Case No. 30/90, registered against him in PS Hindoli, for offences u/ss. 147,148,149,307,324 & 302, IPC. He should be remanded to District Jail-Bundi, and the Superintendent, District Jail-Bundi, be directed to produce Radhakishan before the trial court on 28. 11. 1991, for further remand. . ;