JUDGMENT Bahri, J.(1) This petition has been filed by Baldev Singh who is one of the complainants in the case registered vide Fir No. 441 of 1987 under Section 302 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code .The prosecution version in brief is that all the accused persons namely, Durga Prasad, Faqir Chand, Jagdish alias Kalia, Nirmal Sinah alias Gauria, Hira Lal had picked up and dragged Bhagwant Singh inside the katra and struck him with bricks.It is alleged that Ram Swarup and Hira Lal pinned him down on the ground while Jagdish hit him with a brick and Durga Prasad and Faqira climbed up the roof of the house shouting that Bhagwent Singh be finished and thereafter accused Faqira and Durga Prasad threw the brick wall on Bhagvvaiit Singh who succumbed to his infuries.A charpoi is also stated to have been hit on Bhagwant Singh's chest.Bhagwant Singh is stated to have suffered 15 injuries on his person.(2) Faqir Chand and Durga Prasiid during the investigation have proved bail applications in the Court of Sessions.The same were rejected vide order dated November 2, 19S7 and November 7, 1987 respectively Durga Prasad thereafter moved an application for grant of bail in High Court which was registered as Cril.Misc (M) 762 of 1988 and which came to be dismissed on .July 4. 1988 on merits.1988 through In's wife Shaino Devi before the trial Court as in the meanwhile the case has been committed for trial to the Sessions.It is alleged that the application Faqii Chand was moved by Shri P. P. Grover, Advocate and the application moved on behalf of the Durga Prasad by his wife was moved by Shri Ajay Kumar and who are juniors to Shri P. P. Grover, Advocate, Vide order dated August 4, 1988 line Additional Sessions Judge granted bail to Durga Prasad and vide order dated July 18, 1988 the same Court granted bail to Faqir Chand.It has been pleaded that no fresh grounds have been mentioned in the bail application which could entitled them to get bail from the Additional Sessions Judge.It has been strongly urged that a fraud has been practiced on the trial Court by not disclosing in the bail applica''ions of Faqir Chand and Durga Prasad that their previous bail applications have been dismissed on merits and the application of Durga Prasad had also been dismissed by the High Court.The complainant had moved an application before the Additional Sessions Judge also pointing out these facts seeking the order for cancelling the bail of the said two accused but the Additional Sessions Judge vide his impugned order dated September 7, 1988 had dismissed the application although he had mentioned in the order that if the accused bad disclosed in the application regarding dismissal of their applications on merits earlier, lie might have exercised his discretion in a different way but he, following the judgment of the High Court in K. K. Girdhar Vs.M.S. Kafhuria 35(1988), D.L.T. 392(1) dismissed the application.In the cited case.He has urged that there has been no fraud practiced on the Court by mere omission to mention the fate of the earlier bail applications in the fresh application for bail.(4) The learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand has vehemently argued that by not disclosing the material facts.in the bail application that the previous bail applications has been dismissed on merits, a fraud has been practiced and the order of the Additional Sessions Judge also show's that if the material fact has been disclosed in the new bail applications.One bail application after another can be moved on behalf of the accused for seeking bail.The question which has arisen in the present case is whether on the mere fact that in a fresh application for bail the material fact of previous bail application having been rejected on merits is concluded amounts lo playing fraud on the Court or amounts to abuse of the process of Court if bail is granted on such application without coming to know about the previous application for grant of bail having been dismissed on merits by the High Court or even by the Sessions Court earlier.In case Babu Singh (supra) the only ratio laid down is that repeated applications for bail can be moved by the accused or on behalf of the accused.Counsel for the respondent has also cited Bhagirath singh Judeja Vs.State of Gujarat Facts in brief in the cited case were that an application for bail was moved before the Chief Judicial Magistrate and on the same day an application was moved for hail before the Sessions Judge.The Sessions Judge granted bail.

Cited provisions: Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code