SURTA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second bail application of the petitioner convict u/s. 302 IPC has been filed after waiting for a long period of about four years since the rejection of the first bail application. The first bail application was rejected summarily on 26-9-1974.

(2.) AT the threshold of the arguments, I enquired from Mr. Calla whether he intends to raise any objection regarding jurisdiction of the Single Bench hearing this case during vacation. Mr. Calla was fair enough to concede that Rule 63 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules authorises a Single Judge sitting in vacation to hear and decide cases which, according to the High Court Rules, are to be considered by Division Bench. The only rider is that if an Act expressly excludes the jurisdiction of the Single Bench by laying down that the case is to be heard by more than one Judges then the Vacation Judge cannot hear that case sitting in single bench. Admittedly, the present one is not a case of that type. These are the cases of the type where Indian Divorce Act or some other laws provide that a case should be heard by three Judges or so.

(3.) MR. Purohit further contends, and rightly so, that this is a case of one of those unfortunate accused in whose cases preparation of the paper-book has not yet commenced. I have checked the record and I found that on 14th July, 1975, the office staged that the paper-book should be prepared as the bail application had been rejected on 26th September, 1974. It is not for me to comment but, as a fact, I cannot help observing that in spite of that nothing has been done so far, even to commence the work of preparation of the paper-book. On enquiry from the office I find that the office of the High Court has got 84 criminal appeals registered in the year 1974 of which the paper-books are required to be prepared and out of which only 14 have been prepared so far. The statistical data shown to me further reveals that in all, 520 paper books are to be prepared.