1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CRI. APPLICATION (APPP) NO.676 OF 2011 IN CRI. APPLICATION (APPA) NO.409 OF 2011 (D) IN CRI. APPEAL NO.137 OF 2011 (State of Maharashtra ..vs. Ramesh s/o Pandurang Kale) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri T.A. Mirza & Shri N.S. Khubalkar, A.P.Ps. for the applicant-State, Shri Jaltare, Advocate for the non-applicant-respondent. CORAM : MRS. V.K. TAHILRAMANI AND M.L.TAHALIYANI, JJ. DATE : 15 - 07- 2011 . The State has moved this Court for cancellation of bail granted by this Court to the respondent while disposing of Criminal Application No.409/2011. The respondent was by order dated 7th July, 2011 ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing P.R.Bond and surety bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- and his substantive sentence was suspended. 2. In the present application, it is submitted on behalf of the State that the respondent had obtained the order of bail by suppressing certain material facts from the Court. It is stated that the respondent was on furlough and his furlough period has expired 27th April, 2011. As such he was supposed to surrender before the prison authorities on 27th April, 2011. He had not surrendered before the prison authorities till the date of grant of order of bail in his favour in Criminal Application No. 409/2011. 2 3. During the course of hearing, the learned A.P.Ps. Shri Mirza and Khubalkar have submitted that this fact has been suppressed by the respondent. In fact, the police have issued wireless message for arrest of the respondent as he has failed to surrender even after expiry of his furlough period. It was also submitted before us by the learned A.P.Ps. Mr. Mirza and Khubalkar that they did not know at the time of hearing of bail application that the respondent had not surrendered before the prison authorities despite expiry of his furlough period. 4. This Court on the prayer of learned A.P.Ps. had taken up the matter for hearing on 8th July, 2011. Notice was ordered to be issued to the respondent and it was directed that in the mean time order dated 7th July, 2011 granting bail to the respondent be stayed. 5. The learned Advocate Shri Jaltare for the respondent has appeared and has submitted that in view of the fact that he himself did not know that the respondent had not surrendered before the prison authorities despite expiry of furlough period, this Court may pass necessary suitable orders on the application moved by the State for cancellation of bail. 6. The State has moved for cancellation of bail of the respondent under proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 389 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned A.P.Ps. Shri Mirza and Khubalkar have submitted that the respondent, in fact, has not only kept his lawyer in dark regarding expiry of his furlough period but has played fraud on this Court also. After having heard learned Counsel for both the sides and 3 after having gone through the application filed by the State, we have come to the conclusion that the respondent by suppressing the material facts from the Court has played fraud on the Court. Had it been brought to the notice of the Court that the respondent was granted furlough and had not surrendered despite the expiry of his furlough period, the Court obviously would not have granted him bail. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in 2005 Cr.L.J. 3077, M.C.D. .vs. State of Delhi and another, while dealing with similar situation arising out of different set of facts in the matter of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 has made following observations :- “Thus, the contesting respondent has come to the High Court with unclean hands and withholds a vital document in order to gain advantage on the other side. In our opinion, he would be guilty of playing fraud on the Court as well as on the opposite party. A person whose case is based on falsehood can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation. We have no hesitation to say that a person whose case is based on falsehood has no right to approach the Court and he can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation.” 7. Had it been within our knowledge that the respondent was still out of jail despite expiry of his furlough period, we would not have granted him bail. As such after having carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the applicant-State and the respondent and after taking 4 due note of the fact that the respondent has not still surrendered before the prison authorities, we are of the view that the application of the State needs to be granted. 8. The order passed by us in Criminal Application No.409/2011 dated 7th July, 2011 granting bail to the respondent stands revoked. Stay stands vacated. JUDGE JUDGE pma