ASHOK Vs. ASHOK AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision Under Section 397 of the Cr. P.C. has been filed against the order dated 30 -8 -90 passed by Shri S. C. Gupta, Sessions Judge Bhind in Crime No. 150/88 (Misc. Cr. Case No. 1333/90).

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner is the complainant do the (sic) brother of the deceased Surendra in Crime No. 150/88, P. S. Kotwali Bhind, registered Under Section 302, 307/34 I.P.C. against the non -Petitioner No. 1 and two others.

(3.) BY the impugned order the learned Sessions Judge has wrongly granted bail to the non -Petitioner No. 1 Under Section 439 Cr. P.C. Aggrieved therewith the complainant has preferred this revision. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that in the town of Bhind at the bus stand on 15 -7 -88 there took place a dispute between Jagannath, Pavan and the non -Petitioner on one side and Awadhesh on the other on as to whose bus would start earlier. Accused were armed with guns. Awadhesh directed his bus to go first whereupon Jagannath tried to assault him. The complainant and Surendra (deceased) tried to intervene. Then accused Pavan and Ashok, on the exhortation of the accused Jagannath fired with their guns. Ashok hit Surendra who died at the spot. On complainant's report a case Under Section 302/34 I.P.C. was registered . From the date of the incident i e. 15 -7 -88 the non -Petitioner/ accused Ashok had been absconding. His bail application Under Section 438 Cr. P.C was rejected by the High Court more than once. Suddenly he appeared in the Court of Sessions Judge Bhind on 30 -8 -90 and simultaneously moved an application Under Section 439 Cr. P.C. for bail. The learned Sessions Judge allowed the bail application at the same time without giving any notice to the State and inspite of the objection of the Public Prosecutor. The said order has been challenged on the ground that granting of bail to the non -Petitioner is illegal and incorrect. The learned Court has acted in an unusual and improper manner in unseemly haste. The main accused is Ashok, non Petitioner No. 1. His bail application Under Section 438 Cr. P.C. had been repeatedly rejected by the High Court. He remained absconding for two years and suddenly surrendered before the Session Judge on 30 -8 -90 and was granted bail at the same moment. The whole affair smells of some foul and tends to shake the public confidence. The action of the learned Sessions Judge in not giving the Police an opportunity to make any interrogation or to make any effort to effect recovery from the absconding accused of the gun is wholly unjustified and unreasonable. The accused person does not deserve any bail. Sessions trial was pending before the IV Additional Sessions Judge and he was seized of the cognizance when the learned Sessions Judge entertained and granted bail. A case for cancellation of the bail was made Under Section 439(2) Cr. P.C. and it was prayed that the revision be allowed and the order granting bail be set aside and the accused be directed to be taken in custody.