IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.56252 of 2007 VIBHASH KUMAR CHOUDHARY Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 6 2.5.2008 Heard Counsel for the parties. This application has been filed for cancellation of bail of opposite party no.2,Neel Kamal Yadav, who was granted bail by this court by order dated 6.10.2007 in Cr.Misc.no.42507/07. Counsel for the petitioner submits that from the order dated 6.10.2007,it is absolutely clear that this court was made to believe that only material against the petitioner in an offence under sections 302,394 I.P.C. and 27 of the Arms Act was a confessional statement of a co-accused. He however points out that the petitioner was also identified by the informant in course of Test Identification Parade but this fact was suppressed both in the bail application as also in course of submission. According to the counsel for the petitioner such suppression of fact is good enough for cancellation of bail. Counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand submits that as a matter of fact the confessional - 2 - statement came to be made on 13.2.2007 by a co-accused naming the opposite party no.2 and it was after almost four months thereafter opposite party no.2 is said to have been identified in the Test Identification Parade by the informant. The counsel therefore says that it may be an omission which was not brought to the notice of the court but was not material suppression of fact because once the complicity of the petitioner by name was already made known from the version of co-accused on the basis of which he had already been taken in custody his being identified by the informant in Test Identification Parade will not actually amount to material suppression of fact specially when information of such identification of opposite party no.2 was already on record of Cr. Misc. no. 42507/2007 in the order dated 17.8.2007 passed by the court below refusing him bail as against which the said bail application had been filed before this Court. Having given my anxious consideration , I am of the view that the order in question of this court wherein the order dated 17.8.2007 in bail application no. 1353/07 which was enclosed with aforementioned bail application, filed by - 3 - the opposite party no.2 being Cr. Misc. no. 42507/07, clearly mentioning about such identification of opposite party no.2 in Test Identification Parade and as such the allegation of suppression of fact in course of obtaining bail by opposite party no.2 from this court by making mis- representation in the bail application filed on his behalf in this court does not seem to be correct. It can also not be assumed that this Court was not aware of the reasons refusing bail to the opposite party no.2 and therefore, merely because the court did not refer to the identification of the opposite party no.2 in course of T. I .Parade and granted bail on the basis of being named in confession of co-accused. In any event that alone cannot be a ground for cancellation of bail as was held by the Apex Court in the case of Aslam Babalal Desai vs. State of Maharastra reported in AIR 1993 SC 1. Consequently, there is no merit in this application. It is, accordingly, dismissed. shahid (Mihir Kumar Jha,J)