DINESH TRIPATHI Vs. SAIF AHMAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri A.B.Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. Contempt is alleged of the order dated 20.9.2011 passed in Writ Petition No. 17528 of 2011 (Sri Dinesh Tripathi v. State of U.P. and others). Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that by the order dated 20.9.2011 passed by the Writ Court, it was clearly provided that if the petitioner moves an application for surrender before the Court concerned within three weeks, the Magistrate shall fix a date within two weeks thereafter for appearance of the petitioner and in the meantime release the petitioner on interim bail on such terms and conditions as the court concerned considers fit and proper, till the date fixed for disposal of the regular bail. The Court further provided that when the matter reaches before the Sessions Judge, it will be in the discretion of the Sessions Judge to consider granting interim bail pending consideration of the regular bail on similar terms as mentioned above, if the petitioner applies for bail before him. Further direction was given that for a period of three weeks from that date or till the petitioner appears/surrenders before the court below and applies for bail, whichever is earlier, the petitioner shall not be arrested.

(2.) Insofar as the condition of not being arrested for three weeks prior to surrender is concerned, there is no dispute nor learned counsel has argued that the petitioner was arrested in violation of that condition.

(3.) The directions of the Writ Court in the present case based on the decision of the Full Bench leaves no room for doubt that in case the petitioner moves an application for surrender and the Magistrate does not decide the bail application on the same day, he has to grant interim bail and fix a date for appearance of the applicant for consideration of his application for regular bail.