SHAHABUDDIN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Y.V. Giri learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Birendra Kr. Sinha learned Sr. counsel for the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Mr. Rakesh Kumar learned Standing Counsel, C.B.I., Mr. Lala Kailash Bihari Prasad learned counsel appearing as amicus curiae and the learned Govt. Advocate Mr. S.D. Yadav.

(2.) IN view of the direction of the Hon ble Supreme Court passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1242 of 2004, arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 3778 of 2004. on 1st November, 2004, this order shall dispose of the contempt proceedings initiated against the petitioner and the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court together with bail prayer of the petitioner on merit.

(3.) THE facts on record indicate that petitioner was lodged in District Jail, Siwan. He moved for bail before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and thereafter to learned Sessions Judge, Siwan and both these courts refused bail to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Cr. Misc. No. 30923 of 2003 for grant of regular bail but the same was rejected by the High Court vide its order dated 1.3.2004 with an observation that the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge. Thereafter, the petitioner by filing the instant Cr. Misc. No. 8435 of 2004 on 16.3.04 renewed his prayer for bail as the charge against the petitioner had already been framed. During pendency of the instant Cr. Misc. No. 8435 of 2004 the petitioner further filed I.A. (Crl.) No. 439 of 2004 with a prayer to release petitioner on provisional bail on the ground that the petitioner had been declared elected Member of Parliament from Siwan Parliamentary Constituency and that the budget session of newly constituted 14th Lok Sabha was scheduled to start from 2nd June, 2004 in which the newly elected Member of Parliament had to take oath on 2nd and 3rd June, 2004. It further appears that when both the instant application for bail and I.A. No. 439 of 2004 for release of petitioner on provisional bail were pending before the High Court the petitioner filed an application before Fast Track Court, Siwan, for granting permission to him to go to Delhi for taking oath as a Member of Parliament and participate in the Parliamentary proceedings from 2.6.2004 to 11.6.2004. On this application of petitioner learned Fast Track Court allowed movement of petitioner for taking /oath and attending Parliamentary session vide order dated 28.5.2004 and on the same day. i.e., on 28.5.2004 learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court further passed another order and 3rd order was also passed on 28.5.2004. All these orders were passed when the instant bail application and I.A. filed by the petitioner were pending before the High Court. It further appears that when the matter came to notice of this Court, this Court vide order dated 15.7.2004 cancelled order dated 28.5.2004 passed by Fast Track Court directing that petitioner be kept behind the bar and the matter was also reported to the Hon ble Chief Justice on the same day on 15.7.2004. The matter was ultimately placed before the Standing Committee of this Court for consideration and specific effective decision followed in the matter on 17.7.2004 which is as follows: "A contempt proceeding will be drawn up by the Registrar General without any delay(1) against the accused for interfering with the process of the justice in a matter pending before this Court and (2) against the judge concerned of the Fast Track Court likewise. The Standing Committee was of the view that the matter be handed over to C.B.I. for thorough probe with due speed and a report be submitted to the High Court preferably within one month. On the basis of decision of Standing Committee follow up action was taken, i.e., steps were taken for contempt proceeding against both Sri Anant Prasad Srivastava, the then Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Siwan and the petitioner Md. Shahabuddin and the matter was also handed over to the C.B.I. for thorough investigation and submission of report under letter No. 6041 dated 22.7.2004 of the Registrar General, High Court, Patna. C.B.I. registered a case vide No. PE 1/S/2004 in SCBI Branch, Delhi and after completion of inquiry the C.B.I. submitted final status report to the Registrar General, High Court, Patna under letter No. PE. 1/S/04/SCBI/DLI 9716 dated 27.12.2004. Thereafter the report of the C.B.I. was placed before the Hon ble the Acting Chief Justice on 4.1.2005 and the same was placed before the Standing Committee for consideration. Pursuant to the decision of the Standing Committee dated 12.1.2005 the final status report of the C.B.I. was placed before the Bench for consideration. It further appears that order dated 9.8.2004, by which this Court rejected prayer for bail of the petitioner, and both the petitioner and the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court were directed to show cause as to why contempt proceeding be not initiated against them, was challenged before the Hon ble Supreme Court by the petitioner. It further appears that the Hon ble Supreme Court vide order dated 1st November, 2004 in Cr. Appeal No. 1242 of 2004 [arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 3778 of 2004] passed the following order: "........It is true that the High Court has not considered the various grounds raised by the appellant in the application for bail on merits but rejected it taking note of the conduct of the appellant, as indicated in the order of the High Court extracted above. The position now is that the contempt proceedings initiated against the appellant and the Presiding Officer are pending before the High Court. In these circumstances, the appropriate course to be followed by the High Court would be to decide the contempt proceedings initiated against the appellant and the Presiding Officer and the application for bail filed by the appellant on merits together or decide the contempt proceedings in the first instance and then take up the application for bail for decision on merits immediately thereafter. In this view, we set aside the impugned order, so far as it relates to the rejection of the application for bail filed by the appellant making it clear that the impugned order initiating contempt proceedings against the appellant and the Presiding Officer remains undisturbed. Having regard to the pendency of the proceedings for quite some time, we request the High Court to dispose of the contempt proceedings and the application for bail as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months."