- (1.) BARKAT Ali Zaidi, J. This is a second bail application of one of the two accused in a murder case from Kanpur. An earlier bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 27-3-2000, copy whereof is attached herewith as Annexure-A for ready reference.
(2.) THE trial is now in progress and two prosecution witnesses have already been examined. The accused-applicant has come to this Court straightaway without applying for bail to the trial Judge and without obtaining his order. It may not be strictly illegal but it is the established policy, procedure and principle that before coming to the High Court for bail, the order of the trial Judge or the Sessions Judge should be obtained. The lacuna in dealing with an application on which orders of the trial Court have not been obtained, particularly when the trial is in progress, is that we do not have before us the views of the Judge, whether grant of bail at the particular stage, would in any way, obstruct or impede the trial or not? and whether in the atmosphere and circumstances surrounding the trial, it would be appropriate to grant or refuse bail. It is the trial Judge who is aware of the ground realities and can find out from the police and the prosecutor, whether the grant of bail will have any repercussions on the presentation of witnesses and the progress of the case and whether after release on bail, the accused is likely to intermeddle with prosecution witnesses.
(3.) ALL these findings can properly be looked into by the trial Judge and before, we take a decision in the High Court, we must have the views and the opinion of the trial Judge, so that, we may assess the situation in proper perspective. It is, therefore, necessary that such bail applications should come to the High Court after orders of the trial Judge have been obtained on same. This Court, therefore, refuses to consider the application on merits.;