KAMAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused petitioner was released on bail during trial before the Sessions Court for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC etc. He was to remain present before the Court on 5.8.98 but he did not remain present on that day before the Sessions Court as according to him the date of case was 10.8.98. On 10.8.98 the petitioner himself presented before the trial Court for releasing him on bail as the trial Court issued non-bailable warrant against him for not remaining present on 5.9.98. It is stated in the application that he could not remain present before the Court on 10.8.98 because of the death of his maternal uncle and he could not inform the Court through his Advocate because of the strike of the lawyers in Udaipur. Learned Judge was not satisfied with the explanation offered by the accused in his application, therefore, rejected his application for releasing him on bail by order dated 11.9.98.

(2.) IT must be stated that earlier the case was before the Court of District and Sessions Judge and the date of hearing of the case was 5.8.98 and on that very day i.e. on 5.8.98, the learned Judge transferred the case to the Court of Special Judge, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act cases, Udaipur. Thereupon, the matter was kept on 10.8.98 by the learned Special Judge. On that day i.e. on 10.8.98, there was no exemption application for the accused, therefore, the bail bonds of the accused were forfeited.

(3.) CONSIDERING the reasons assigned by the learned Special Judge for rejecting the bail application, I am of the view that the learned Special Judge was wholly wrong in rejecting bail application of the accused. Bail application of the accused ought not to have been rejected in this manner. The learned Judge ought to have appreciated the fact that strike of lawyers in Udaipur is going on since last more than a month and on the date of hearing i.e. on 10.8.98 fixed by the learned trial Judge, matter would not have proceeded at all. The learned Judge ought to have taken into consideration the past conduct of the accused, who invariably remained present when the matter was fixed before the trial Court. It is unfortunate that for rejecting the bail application of the accused, who invariably remained present when the matter was fixed before the trial Court. It is unfortunate that for rejecting the bail application of the accused, the learned Judge has taken into consideration the accusation levelled against the petitioner, which was not permissible in view of the fact that the accused was already enlarged on bail on this very accusation. The Courts have to decide the cases objectively and not subjectively. This type of approach of the subordinate Court unnecessarily adds to the baclog of thousands of cases which are pending in this Court. In my opinion, this was a fit case wherein the learned Special Judge ought to have released the accused on bail.