IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA OCR. MISC (DB) No.20 of 2008 THE STATE OF BIHAR Versus SHAMBHU SN.SINGH ----------- 4. 16.12.2008 The contempt proceeding was initiated against Mr. Shambhu Sharan Singh, advocate in view of the order dated 27.8.2008 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 36057 of 2008 by Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.D. Jha. One, Rameshwar Singh is an accused in Fulwarisharif P.S. Case No. 551/05. He moved for grant of bail for the first time vide Cr. Misc. No. 29869 of 2006. Counsels for the petitioner in this Cr. Misc. Application were Mr. Shailesh Kumar Singh and Mr. Anant Kumar Singh. The bail application was rejected by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shyam Kishore Sharma. Rameshwar Singh when renewed his prayer for bail, Mr. Shambhu Sharan Singh was engaged as advocate. The bail application was filed vide Cr. Misc. No. 13426 of 2007 but the mandatory declaration as per rule 4(A) Chapter 12 of Patna High Court Rule regarding earlier filing of the bail petition before this Hon’ble Court in Cr. Misc. No. 29869/06 was not mentioned rather it was stated that the petitioner has not earlier moved for grant of bail in this case before this court. This time also, bail application was rejected. However, on third occasion, bail application was filed vide Cr. Misc. No. 13426 of 2007 , there was a - 2 - declaration regarding filing of bail application in Cr. Misc. No. 13426/07. So far the first application for grant of bail is concerned, there was no mention. This time also, bail application was rejected. Thereafter, the petitioner renewed his prayer before the session’s judge. In the impugned order passed by the Sessions Judge rejecting the prayer for bail of the petitioner, there was reference of all three bail applications, earlier moved before the High Court and their rejection. The petitioner made fourth attempt for grant of bail by filing Cr. Misc. No. 36057 of 2008 in which in paragraph-2 , there was disclosure regarding the first application filed by the petitioner vide Cr. Misc. No. 29869/06. This disclosure was detected by the Hon’ble Judge and it was considered that there is concealment of facts by the petitioner as in his application for bail filed at second and third time, there was no disclosure regarding his first application for bail. A direction was issued for initiating a proceeding of contempt against the counsel who filed bail application on behalf of the petitioner on second, third and fourth occasions. Mr. Shambhu Sharan Singh, advocate has filed a show-cause. In his show-cause, he has stated that he never intentionally concealed or suppressed any material fact. Second, third and fourth occasions, when bail applications were moved by him on behalf of the petitioner, Rameshwar Singh. He received instruction from pairvikar. - 3 - The pairvikar was no other than, the son-in-law of the petitioner. He did not disclose regarding first bail application of the petitioner and its rejection. The counsel came to know regarding the first bail application of the petitioner from the impugned order passed by the sessions judge when he was going to move bail application of the petitioner for the fourth time. After coming to know this fact, he duly made statement in paragraph-2 as required under the provisions of Rule 4(A), Chapter 12 of Patna High Court rule. Any concealment if made, i.e. by the pairvikar and the person who has sworn affidavit. We find that the show-cause is convincing and explaining the situation in which the proper disclosure was not made in the second and third bail petition moved by the petitioner. The show cause filed by Mr. Shambhu Sharan Singh is accepted. The contempt proceeding is dropped. However, the counsel is cautioned to be more cautious in future when filing any application in criminal proceeding. AKV/ (Mridula Mishra,J.) (Syed Md. Mahfooz Alam,J.)