MD JASIM @ SANJAY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The petitioners, who were granted regular bail by the Incharge Judge had to come to this Court because the said orders granting bail was set aside by the Sessions Judge on 26.8.1999. It appears that in a matter of a private complaint, warrants were issued therefore, the accused-persons appeared in the Court made an application for the bail and the Judge Incharge allowed the application and directed release of the applicants on bail. The order dated 26.8.1999 unfortunately is not palatable, it makes certain observations against the Subordinate Judicial Officer without taking into consideration that the higher Courts in fact are the guardians of the subordinate Courts and the subordinate Judges. A Judge must know that where his pen should stop and what he should not write in his order. In the present case the learned' Sessions Judge while setting aside the order granted by the learned trial Court observed as under :

(3.) These observations by no stretch of imagination can give any concession in favour of the learned Sessions Judge nor can be approved. Barring the conjectures and' surmises the learned Sessions Judge had nothing before him, no record was submitted before him that the learned Judge, who granted bail passed the orders on some consideration other than the judicial considerations. When the matter came-up for hearing before this Court, this Court required the complainant to justify these observations. On 8.7.2002 the learned counsel for the non- applicant No. 2 submitted that the allegations against the concerned Judicial Magistrate were made with a sense of responsibility and further that the present applicant could manage to secure the orders from the concerned Judge.