Bail seekers beware 8212; HC

MUMBAI, SEPTEMBER 17: The Bombay High Court has warned litigants against suppressing material facts while seeking bail. An applicant with soiled hands will not be entitled to bail, goes the ruling of Justice Vishnu Sahai.

The judge rejected a bail application of two persons accused of murder, observing that they had allegedly inflicted fatal blows on the victim8217;s body. Moreover, their conduct of suppressing facts before the court further disentitles them. Three persons accused of murder had applied for bail before Justice A B Palkar of the BHC. However, the counsel did not argue for two persons. As is obvious only one of the applicants, whose case was pursued, got bail. Thereafter, the remaining two persons moved the Sessions Court. However, they concealed the fact that they had earlier applied in the high court. Both secured bail in April 1998 in the Sessions Court.

But, the complainant in the murder case filed a criminal writ petition which was heard by Justice D G Deshpande. The judge cancelled thebail granted by the Sessions Court. Therefore, the two accused moved the high court, where again their bail was cancelled.

Justice Sahai observed that the accused did not approach the high court with clean hands. Even after the high court had once rejected their bail application, as it was not argued, there was no reason to go back to the Sessions Court. 8220;I make no bones in observing that a high court rejects a bail application, either on merits or because it was not presed for, it would be grossly improper for a subordinate court to entertain a second application for bail.8221; The judge has said that such an application can be heard by a lower court only if the high court grants liberty.