(1.) KUNDAN Singh, J. This is second bail application by Ram Bhagwan applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that co-accused Ram Samuj has been granted bail by the learned Session Judge and the role assigned to the applicant is similar as has been attributed to Ram Samuj and, therefore, on the ground of parity the applicant Ram Bhagwan is also entitled to the facility of bail on the contrary, the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant was that the order of the learned Session Judge releasing Ram Samuj on bail is highly improper and un justified on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, especially when it was brought to his notice that on the same facts bail had already been refused to co- accused Ram Bhagwan by the High Court and that the case of Ram Samuj co-accused was no how distinguishable from that of Ram Bhawan. He also urged that it was stressed before the learned Session Judge that in the given circumstances it is only the High Court which could grant bail to Ram Samuj and not the learned Session Judge. During the course of arguments the learned counsel for the complainant also brought to the notice of the court that the applicant and co-accused Ram Samuj were already involved in three cases including two under Section 302, IPC. In those cases they were on bail but abusing the facility of bail extended to them they have committed the present crime and hence the applicant is not entitled to bail in this case on that ground alone. The learned counsel for the applicant then strenuously argued that the applicant cannot be refused bail in this case on the ground that he has misused his bail in other three cases by committing the present crime and the only course open to the prosecution is to move applications for cancellation of bail in those three cases in which they are on bail rather refusing that facility to him on that ground in the present ease. In that connection he also relied upon three Single Judge decisions of this Court in the cases Abrar v. State of U. P. , 1983 U. P. Criminal Rulings 94; Govind Narain Dubey v. State of U. P. , 1984 U. P. Criminal Rulings 4; and Mathu v. State of U. P. , 1986 U. P. Criminal Rulings 217. I have gone through those deci sions but with deference to the learned Judge who decided those cases, I regret to record my disagreement with them. I am not in favour of setting a person at liberty who is committing crimes repeatedly one after the other. The accused in the present case were involved in three cases and two of them related to murders. In all those three cases they had obtained bail and after coming out of the jail they have committed the fourth crime also. Such a person should not be encouraged or given licence to commit the offences repeatedly after seeking the facility of bail. I am not im pressed the least with the argument of the learned counsel that bereft of the fact as to what is the criminal history of the applicant his case may be considered on the merits of the present case and the prosecuting agency be left free to move bail cancellation applications in those three cases. So far as merit of the case is concerned, that has been considered while rejecting the previous bail application of the applicant. Except the fact that co-accused Ram Samuj has been granted bail by the learned Session Judge on same set of facts, no new ground has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant. I cannot mince words that the learned Ses sion Judge had gone out of the way in granting bail to co-accused Ram Samuj. When on the same set of facts bail was refused by this Court to Ram Bhagwan co-accused and that fact was brought to the notice of the learned Session Judge he had committed judicial impropriety in passing the bail order. It was a second bail application before the learned Session Judge and while allowing bail to Ram Samuj he had not pointed out any new circumstances for taking a different view from his predecessor distinguishing the facts and circumstances of the bail application of Ram Samuj from that of Ram Bhawan, who had been refused bail by this Court on merit. It is a case of great judicial indiscipline for which the conduct of the learned Session Judge deserves to be censured.
(2.) THE learned counsel then contended that the learned Session Judge has taken notice of the long detention of Ram Samuj in Jail while releasing him on bail and so on the same analogy the applicant may also be enlarged on bail. It is not a singular offence committed by the applicant. In succes sion four offences have been committed by the applicant and Ram Samuj co-accused. Two of them were of heinous nature and the learned Session Judge appears to be dead set in granting bail to the co-accused. This Court has already censured his conduct for throwing to winds the judicial norms in granting bail to the co-accused of the applicant. Detention of the applicant in Jail for a longer time is hardly a ground for extending him facility of bail vis-a-vis his involvement in three other crimes THE learned Session Judge, of course, had parted with the judicial norms in granting bail to Ram Samuj despite caution given to him that on the same set of facts bail had already been refused to Ram Bhagwan co-accused by the High Court.