JUDGMENT :

(Subhendu Samanta, J.)

CRAN 1 of 2022 and CRAN 2 of 2022 is disposed of with a direction that the delay in preferring the application for restoration is condoned. The application for restoration is allowed. CRR is hereby restored to its original file and number.

2. The instant criminal revision is preferred against order dated 8th May 2018 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ghatal, Paschim Medinipur, in connection with Criminal Misc case No.4039 of 2017 in connection with GR No.388 of 2017 arising out of Ghatal Police Station case No.118 of 2017 dated 16.06.2017 u/s 458/436/302/120B/506 of IPC.

3. The brief fact of the case is that the present petitioner was arrayed as an accused along with others in connection with the above mentioned P.S. case. During the course of investigation the accused was arrested and taken into custody. The prayer for bail u/s 439 Cr.P.C. was allowed by the Sessions Judge, in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 25.09.2017.

4. One application u/s 439 (2) of Cr.P.C. was filed by the de facto complainant for cancellation of the bail. Learned Sessions Judge heard the matter from the both side and passed the impugned order by allowing the application for cancellation of bail and the order of granting bail in favour of the present petitioner was cancelled.

5. Hence this revision.

6. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted before this court that the Impugned Order passed by the Learned Sessions Judge, is palpably illegal and irregular.

7. The opinion of the learned Sessions Judge, in passing the impugned order is erroneous the Learned Sessions Judge, has misread and misconstrued the provision enumerated u/s 439 (2) of the Cr.P.C. and came to an erroneous conclusion. He further argued that other accused persons in this case are enlarged on bail. So by cancelling the order of bail by virtue of an application u/s 439(2) Cr.P.C. would not serve any fruitful purpose. He further argued that the learned Sessions Judge has failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances of this case. The observation of the Learned Sessions Judge regarding the fact that on the earlier occasion the bail prayer of the present petitioner was turned down by the Hon'ble High Court is not logically correct. The Hon'ble High Court considered the bail prayer of the present petitioner in CRM No.8390 of 2017 at the stage prior to submission of the charge sheet. The order of bail by the Sessions Court was granted in favour of the present petitioner after submission of charge sheet on the ground that some accused persons were already granted bail. He further argued that petitioner never suppressed regarding the earlier order of Hon'ble High court. Thus, he prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed by the Learned Sessions Judge.

8. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the private opposite party/de facto complainant submitted before this court that the impugned order passed by the Learned Sessions Judge, suffers no illegality at the time of making prayer before the Learned Sessions Judge, for bail the present petitioner accused suppressed the fact that his bail prayer was turned down by the Hon'ble High court. If the fact of rejection of bail prayer was not suppressed, the prayer for bail would not have been granted. In passing the impugned order Learned Sessions Judge, had correctly opined that suppression of Order of a High Court regarding rejection of pail prayer tantamount to practising fraud upon court. He further pointed out that due to a pendency of this instant criminal revision the criminal trial of a barbaric murder case is stalled. The present petitioner has adop