COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION Vs. VISHNU PANDIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . This matter arises out" of suo moto court action in calling upon the two respondents as to why their applications for their release on bail be not rejected. They are accused of offences under sections 366/376/342/506/34 Indian Penal Code. By two separate orders the learned Additional Sessions Judge had released both the respondents on bail. The order of this Court issuing show cause notice is dated 21 November 1992 and it is appropriate to set out that order in full showing the circumstances as to why the court thought it fit to take suo moto action:-

(2.) In pursuance to the notices the respondents did appear and were represented by their respective counsel. Arguments could not be heard earlier as time and again they have been asking tor adjournment on the ground that the lawyers of Delhi High Court Bar Association were abstaining' from appearing in court. Thus, if there is any delay on this account in disposing of the show cause notice the respondents are to blame themselves or their counsel.

(3.) . A great deal of arguments- have been addressed by the respondents as if I have been holding a trial which has concluded. I told counsel for all the parties that I will consider the record of investigation only upto the stage when the learned Additional Sessions Judge passed the two impugned orders releasing the respondents on bail to see the validity of those orders. Both Mr. Sharma and Mr. Mathur said that that was a right approach. Mr. Sud, however, said that since the investigation in the case was almost complete this court could nevertheless go into all the material so far collected and pass orders releasing the respondents on bail even if it could be said that the earlier orders of the learned Additional Sessions Judge were not valid. I do not think I should be doing that. The accused have right to move for .bail as per the Code again and again if subsequent circumstances so demand. They will be at liberty to move the appropriate court for the purpose. While examining the case I have to be cautious that I do not pre-judge the evidence which is yet to come on record and this foreclose the criminal trial. The order which I respondents to move the court concerned now or at any subsequent stage praying for their release on bail. Before me the question is if the learned Additional Sessions Judge was legally correct in releasing the respondents on bail as per the record then existing. This order, therefore, cannot come in the way of any court exercising power to release the respondents on bail taking into account events subsequent to the stage of the impugned orders.