RAMZAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -

(2.) THE bail-application was decided by the learned Sessions Judge, Alwar, exparty as lawyers were not appearing due to strike. He had perused the case-diary and decided the application. He did not even call the accused from the custody as according to him it was not essential. In my opinion, this approach is erroneous. Criminal cases cannot be decided in the absence of the accused or their Counsel. Some-one has to be present on behalf of the accused and this has been cautioned by the Honble Supreme Court time and again and this Court has also re-iterated the same. At times it causes great injustice as is apparent in this case also. THE learned Sessions Judge, Alwar, has rejected the bail-application considering that the accused was one of the occupant of the Maruti Car which had been stolen when he was coming from Haryana. On behalf of the accused a copy of the order has been placed before me and the order has been passed by the learned Magistrate, Kama, in respect of the same vehicle which show that this was not a case of theft as the car has been sold through registration. Thus it appears that proper facts were not placed before the learned Sessions Judge, Alwar. It cannot be said that what would have been the order had this fact had not influenced the mind of the Court. THE case of the prosecution itself, is that it was Akhtar Hussain, who had asked Phiroti and not the accused petitioner. THE only evidence against him is that it was in his Nohara from where in the tractor had been received. In these circumstances, I am inclined to accept this bail-application.