TEJGIR Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In pursuance to a direction by this Court made on 11-7-85, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratlam, is also present with his explanation. The same be kept on record. The record of the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratlam, is also produced and is perused.

(2.) This Court by its order dt. 3-7-1985, passed in Misc. Cr. Case No. 589 of 1985, directed the applicants to be released on bail on their furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratlam. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratlam refused to release them on bail on the ground that the order did not indicate the crime number in which the applicants were arrested and the bail-bonds were not accepted, resulting in non-compliance of this Court's order. The applicants again moved this Court ventilating their grievance of not being released for the omission indicated above. It was in such circumstances that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratlam, was directed to appear before this Court on 15-7-1985 and the record of the Court was also sent for. The Magistrate accordingly appeared and submitted his explanation, which is taken on record. Although the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratlam, has unconditionally apologised for his refusal to comply with the order of this Court, he has also added a para by way of explanation and tried to justify his action. Para 2 of his explanation reads as follows :

(3.) It is not so much a matter of non-compliance of this Court's direction but the attitude and approach on the part of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratlam and for that matter any Magistrate, who in utter disregard of the liberty of a citizen, delays the release of a prisoner on such trivial grounds, like non-mention of crime number. If there is any truth in the anxiety expressed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratlam, that the Jail authorities do not release, it cannot be a matter of anticipation. If there be any such difficulty, it can only arise after putting the order of release in its implementation. Such speculation on the part of any Magistrate that for want of crime number the Jail authorities would not release a person is out of place. It is their duty to comply with the directions and in compliance of the direction if any difficulty in fact arises, to bring it to the notice of the superior Court or remedy the same if they can do it rather than delaying the release of a person on some fanciful notion or apprehension, which can hardly be said to be reasonable. No doubt the identity of the person to be released in pursuance of an order is to be there. But when the identity of the prisoner ordered to be released is not in dispute or doubt, as in this case, the insistence for having the 'crime number', to say the least, is wholly unjustified. The Chief Judicial Magistrate has neither cited any instance in his explanation, nor could he give any, when asked by this Court of belated release of a prisoner for want of crime number. The explanation submitted by him is wholly unsatisfactory and unconvincing. Even assuming it to be so, it does not stand to reason as to why the compliance of this Court's order should itself be deferred that too on such a trival ground. Instead of showing a live concern for liberty of a citizen, carrying out the order with all promptness and despatch as such orders ought to be carried out, and taking those erring authorities to task, who obstruct the execution of such orders, the Magistrate has preferred to defer the compliance of the order itself in anticipation of such obstruction, reminding of an ancient Nyaya