COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION Vs. SANJAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Court took notice in this matter on a complaint received by Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court by a Senior Advocate of Sirsa, who, of course, did not mention his name. It appears that the matter was referred to me being the Inspecting Judge of the Courts located in District Sirsa in which District prosecutrix-Surjit was allegedly gang-raped. Even though the complaint was against the Presiding Officer of the Court, Shri Gorakh Nath, Sessions Judge, Sirsa, who dealt with the applications for anticipatory bail filed by the accused, it was thought appropriate to first deal, on judicial side, with the matter as such treating the complaint to be application for cancellation of the bail and then to deal in the matter on administrative side against the officer concerned, if circumstances so demanded.

(2.) ON August 17, 1994, thus, I issued notice to the Advocate General, Haryana, the prosecutrix and the accused. Shri R. S. Cheema, a Senior Advocate of this Court was requested to assist the Court in the matter. The records of the case were also sent for. On the adjourned date i. e. September 2,1994, the police file containing all papers regarding investigation of the matter and records from the Sessions Court were made available and were ordered to be retained in the Court. The parties were given opportunity to get all or any document that they required with a view to defend this case. Shri Surjit Kaur prosecutrix did not appear on the adjourned date i. e. September 9,1994, matter had to be adjourned for September 16, 1994. On the date aforesaid, however, Smt. Surjit Kaur attended the Court and was asked some questions which exercise became necessary in view of the fact that during the pendency of this petition, two affidavits were allegedly given by her in which she had denied the incident, subject matter of First Information Report which she lodged 7/8 days after the incident of rape. Before I proceed with the matter any further, it will be useful to detail the facts of the case right from the date when the FIR was lodged in the matter till date.

(3.) BALJIT Singh on February 26,1994 i. e. just two days after the FIR came to be recorded by the police applied for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The matter came to be disposed of by the Sessions Judge, Sirsa on 28th itself. The bail application after taking into consideration the entire prosecution story and the defence version was rejected. The operative part of the order passed by the Sessions Judge reads as follows :