BIPIN BEHARI RANSINGH Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD .

(2.) PRAYER for modification of the order stands rejected inasmuch as on 29.1.1998 while rejecting the bail application filed under Section 438, Cr.P.C. on the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, a direction was issued that in the event the petitioner shall surrender in the Court of S.D.J.M., Khurda in G.R. Case No. 876 of 1997 on 12.2.1998 by 11.00 A.M. and apply for bail, learned S.D.J.M. shall do well to hear and dispose of the bail application on merit and in accordance with law during the 1st hour of the day. In Misc. Case No. 318 of 1998 prayer was made for modification of the above order and to extend the date of surender to 20.3.1998. That prayer was allowed. In spite of that petitioner did not surrender and has approached this Court again for extension of the date. It may be made clear that while rejecting the bail application, above type of observation is made only with a view that bail application is disposed of expeditiously. Such order does not carry the meaning that petitioner shall not be arrested in the meantime. In other words, direction of the aforesaid nature does not prevent the investigating/arresting authorities to arrest the concerned accused. Similarly, such order does not suggest that if surrender memo and bail application is filed, it must be allowed. In other words the concerned Magistrate or -Sessions Court shall consider the prayer for bail on merit and depending upon facts and circumstances and nature and gravity of the offence, either allow or reject the petition in accordance with law and after due perusal of L.C.R. and CD. At the risk of repetition it may be noted here that all that is intended by such an observation/order is that the bail application should be disposed of as expeditiously as possible, so that persons entitled to bail need not suffer in visiting jail even for one day. Such a direction is not an order under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. Rather, it is an order passed by exercising the inherent power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and by exercising the discretion. In this case, petitioner having not availed the discretionary order passed is not only avoiding arrest by the Investigating agency, but also delaying his appearance in the proceeding. A Court is not a club house that petitioner shall appear leisurely and according to his own convenience. Attitude of the petitioner also goes against the discipline in the system.