- (1.) D. K. Trivedi, J. By means of this petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. Shri L. P. Misra, District Judge, Raibareli (at present District Judge, Unnao) prays for expunging the following remarks in the judgment passed in Criminal Misc. Case No. 694 of 1992, Brahmajeet Singh v. State of U. P. and Anr. , cancelling the bail of opposite parties No. 2 and 3 in Crime No. 157 of 1992, Police Station Lalganj, District Raebareli under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 201 I. P. C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. By filing a supplementary affidavit the applicant prays that the following portion from the judgment be expunged: "again an application for bail was moved before the Sessions Judge and the, same was disposed of in the Chamber specially when the Sessions Judge was not doing any judicial work on the said date. The circumstances, in which the bail application was entertained and disposed of by the Sessions Judge itself raised doubts and shakes the confidence of the general public. The Court below but in my opinion the same are not applicable in the instant case where the bail was granted by the Sessions Judge over-looking all the norms and conventions prevalent in the Court below and by adopting a novel procedure. The circumstances in which the bail application was disposed of by the Sessions Judge is, on the face of it, not appreciable and is sufficient to shake the confidence of the general public. "
(2.) THE main contention of the applicant's Counsel is that no opportunity was given to the applicant and therefore, the present structure are liable to be set aside. It is further alleged that the fact mentioned in the order that on the said date the Sessions Judge disposed of only one application and was not doing any judicial work is not correct. In fact, he disposed of several bail applications and other things, therefore, the fact that he disposed of only this application for bail sitting in Chamber is not correct. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the Government Advocate. By deciding the application for cancellation of bail I have only pointed out the manner of disposal of the bail application and nothing else. The manner in which the bail application was disposed of by the District Judge, was in my opinion not proper and the said manner shakes the confidence of general public. I have not made any personal remarks against the District Judge. The manner of disposal of the bail application was necessary for disposal of the said application and therefore, the manner was considered and bail was cancelled. As I have pointed out above, there is no personal strictures, therefore, no explanation was called from the District Judge. Apart from this whatever facts I have mentioned in the order passed while disposing of the Crl. Misc. Case No. 694 of 1992 are mainly based on the facts mentioned in the orders passed by the District Judge himself. In these circumstances there is nor need for calling the explanation from the District Judge. The question whether on the date of disposal of the bail application he was doing any judicial work or not the same finds mention in the order passed by the District Judge himself on 25-8-1992. The said order was part of the application for cancellation of Bail. In the said order itself it has been mentioned that due to his illness he was not doing judicial work. No doubt, in the said order it has been further mentioned by the District Judge that due to pressure from the Lawyers he used to dispose of bail applications in Chamber. Now he has filed copy of the order-sheet alongwith this application pointing out that he has done other work also on the said date and on this basis it is alleged that the fact is wrongly mentioned in the said order and, therefore, the same be recalled. However, in view of the case of K. P. Tewari v. State of M. P. , 1994 (31) ACC 27,1 expunged the following remarks from the order dated 15-5-1993, passed in Crl. Misc. Case No. 694 of 1992 (Bail) Brahma Jeet Singh v. State of U. P. and Ors. : (1) at page 17of the judgment: (2) "specially when the Sessions Judge was not doing any judicial work on the said date" and (3) "the circumstances in which the bail application was entertained and disposed of by the Sessions Judge itself raises doubts and shakes the confidence of the general public. (2) at page 19of the judgment. : (iii) "where the bail was granted by the Sessions Judge overlooking all the norms and conventions prevalent in the Court below and by adopting a novel procedure. " (3) at page 20 of the judgment: (iv) "and thereafter, allowing them to choose the Court of his awn liking and thereafter, granting bail sitting in Chamber doing no other judicial work. "
(3.) IN the result the application is allowed to the extent mentioned above. Application allowed. .;