- (1.) Heard Sri. Rakesh Kumar Pathak, learned counsel for applicant, learned Standing Counsel for State and perused the record. It is really surprising that Bail Application No. 311 of 2014 Ravi Shashikant Vishwakarma v. State of U.P., filed on behalf of applicant is not being attended and disposed of by Sessions Judge, Chandauli, as is evident from orders dated 05.05.2014, 09.05.2014, 15.05.2014, 20.05.2014, 26.05.2014 and 02.06.2014, whereby the same has been adjourned only on the ground that Advocates are on strike and therefore, request of prosecution for adjournment is accepted,
(2.) This approach on the part of Sessions Judge concerned is apparently illegal, inasmuch as in my view, he has failed to discharge his duties in the manner as laid down by a Seven Judges' decision of this Court in Amaravati and another v. State of U.P., 2005 CrLJ 755(All) and approved in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P., 2009 4 SCC 437 .
(3.) Both the above authorities have also dealt with the tendency of Courts in not passing orders on bail applications expeditiously, by applying mind, and instead simply deferring proceedings. It has been considered by this Court also in Trilok Chand v. State of U.P. and Anr. (Application u/S. 482, Cr.P.C. No. 19926 of 2013, decided on 19.06.2013), and deprecating above tendency, in paragraph Nos. 22 and 23, this Court has said: "22. Lastly it is contended mat at least the courts below be directed to consider the bail application of accused applicant on the same day when it is presented. It is pointed out that in many of the cases the concerned courts/Magistrates either grant interim bail or sent accused in jail by deferring any order on the bail application due to paucity of time and that is how the fundamental right of life and liberty of accused is jeopardised for no fault on his part. 23. What is said, if correct, is admittedly something serious and puts a lot on the system of administration of justice. If a person who otherwise does not deserve bail for one or the other reasons is allowed interim bail, only for one or the other reasons is allowed interim bail, only for the reason that concerned Magistrate/Court finds no time to apply mind on his application, it would not only be travesty of justice but would be highly dangerous for the society at large. Similarly, if a person is sent to jail, curtailing his liberty, only for the reason that concerned Magistrate/court could not find time to apply mind on his bail application, again this would be a case of grave injustice, besides violation of fundamental rights of a citizen. Both the situations cannot be appreciated. In the circumstances, I would like to hold that if a bail application is moved in time, with due notice to other side, if so required in law, the Magistrate/court concerned must consider the relevant facts and circumstances before passing any order either way and in case the number of applications are such so as not to make it possible to be attended within the court timing, the District Judge concerned shall look into and distribute the work in such manner so that applications are attended by competent courts without any undue delay and no person is sent to jail or released, by way of interim bail, without application of mind by concerned court/Magistrate. If necessary the Court may attend such applications irrespective of the fact that court timing is over. Upholding Constitutional rights and people's freedom vis-a-vis the safety, protection and interest of society is of prime importance and it cannot be compromised in the name of court timings or something for which the parties are not responsible and accountable. If necessary, on this aspect the matter may also be examined on administrative side by this Court after having relevant information with detail facts and datas from concerned district judgeship(s).";