D. N. Jba, J. - (1.) THIS is a second bail application. The first bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 3-4-1985. It may be mentioned that I had admitted Girish to bail keeping in mind that he had no past criminal history.
(2.) IN this second bail application it has been brought to my notice that the learned Illrd Additional Sessions Judge, Sri S. K. Srivastava allowed bail to Ram Autar on 7-6-1985 and co-accused Vishwanath has been admitted to bail vide order of the INcharge Sessions Judge Sri MunendTa Saxena dated 8-7-85. Both the learned Judges have not applied their mind to the order passed by this Court. Munendra Saxena has even gone to the extent of observing :- " The criminal history of the applicant accused will mean ending into conviction and not the involvement in cases. " It appears that the learned Judge is not abreast with the surroundings in which the criminal justice is supposed to be dispensed by the courts. He is also not abreast with the views that are being expressed from time to time by the Supreme Court with respect to criminal case. It is not merely the conviction of an individual in a case that would tantamount to 'criminal history'. It is a latent fact that now-a-days crimes are being committed brazebly and witnesses shudder to appear against hard core criminals. I wonder if cases have come to the notice of the Court that even complainants in criminal cases turn hostile. It is high time the learned Sessions Judge understand the criminal law and bear in mind the interest of the society for which the law has to be administered. The most important function of the State is that it acts as the guardian of law. The object of redress is to restore the position demanded by the rule of right, to substitute justice for injustice and to compel the wrong-doer to repent for causing injury to the person because it is an act contrary to the order, peace and well being of the society. If a person being involved in a large number of cases escapes conviction on account of technicalities and niceties of law it would not mean that the man has a clean slate. It is also to be noted that on account of delay in trial so many things happen on account of which accused are at times acquitted. Therefore, mere acquittal cannot be a sound yardstick to enurciate the principle that unless and until a person has not been convicted it cannot be said that the man does not have a criminal history. It is no doubt true that false implications by police and the investigating agency also cannot be lost sight of but, those cases normally relate to offence under sections 395, 396, 399/402 IPC and section 25 Arms Act etc. and are often utilised as the common weapons to deal with persons who try to act in a hostile manner with the police or have incurred their displeasure. However, even involvement in those cases at times would not ipso facto absolve the persons altogether in aforementioned offences. The Courts have to collect an over all picture on hearing the learned counsel for the parties for purposes of admitting a person to bail. It is not only the duty of the police to provide security to the society but the Courts have also a very important role to play in safeguarding the innocent society which is not in a position to have individual police protection. I have no hesitation in observing that the incharge Sessions Judge by making observation in his order dated 8-7-1985 tried to disagree with the order passed by this Court. It is not expected from the subordinate courts to give expression contrary to the observations made by the High Court. Even obiter dicta of the High Court has a binding effect on the subordinate courts. This Court has made certain observations while admitting Girish to bail and, therefore, the Incharge Sessions Judge Sri Munendra Saxena and the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge Sri S. K.Srivastava should have doubly assured their confidence before admitting the co-accused in the case to bail. The extraneous exercise of discretion by the subordinate courts at times places this Court in a very embarrassing situation and such a practice should be avoided by the subordinate courts. In view of my observations already made in the order rejecting the bail I see no good ground to revise my view with respect to past criminal history of Chheda. He is not entitled to bail on merits.
(3.) HOWEVER, inview of the medical certificate attached with this application with respect to ailment of applicant's wife I admit Chheda to a short term bail for a period of four months which will commence to run from the date of release of the applicant from jail on his furnishing adequate sureties and a personal bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitapur, to enable him to provide medical facilities to his ailing wife. The applicant shall surrender alter expiry of the period. Let a copy of the order be sent to the District Judge, Sitapur, for communication to the concerned Additional District and Sessions Judges.;