Shri Kant Tripathi, J. - (1.) IN this matter, the learned Counsel for the Appellant has filed this third correction application No. 277669/2011 to correct the order dated 20.7.2011.
(2.) THE learned Counsel for the Appellant filed today an affidavit to the effect that Mr. Navneet Kumar, Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Ramabai Nagar is not implementing the bail order passed by this Court on one pretext or the other, therefore, the Appellant had no option except to move this third correction application. It may be mentioned that in Criminal Appeal No. 3171/2011, preferred against the judgment and order dated 31.3.2011 rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Ramabai Nagar in Sessions trial No. 89 of 2010 State v. Guddu, this Court directed the release of the Appellant Guddu on bail, but due to typographical error, the date of the judgment and order, name of the trial court and sessions trial number were not transcribed in the bail order dated 30.7.2011, therefore, the Appellant moved correction application No. 232742/2011, which was allowed on 11.8.2011. Consequently, it was indicated that the appeal has been preferred against the order dated 31.3.2011 rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Ramabai Nagar in S.T. No. 89/2010. The learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that after the correction of the bail order, the Appellant moved an application before the trial court for acceptance of bail bonds and personal bond, but the learned trial court, instead of obeying the bail order passed by this Court, again raised objection that the bail order did not contain crime number and sections in which bail has been granted. On the second correction application No. 261156/2011 it was directed by this Court vide the order dated 5.9.2011, that the bail order dated 30.7.2011 corrected by this Court vide the order dated 11.8.2011 contained the date of the judgment, name of the trial court and sessions trial number which were sufficient to locate the case in which bail has been granted and it was further observed that no further specification was necessary. Despite this clear direction, the learned trial court has yet not implemented the bail order and insisted upon the Appellant to furnish crime number and sections etc.
(3.) PRIMA facie, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Ramabai Nagar has not only been highly irresponsible but has also a contemptuous conduct. He, instead of implementing the order passed by this Court, has unnecessarily indulged himself in finding fault with the order. If he had some difficulty or he was of the view that the order was not clear in any way, he should have passed an order indicating the ambiguity or the difficulty, which was required to be removed by this Court but he can not be said to be justified in refusing to entertain the prayer of the Appellant without passing any order.;