- (1.) S. K. Phaujdar, J. Heard the learned Counsel and the learned A. G. A. and the learned Counsel for the com plainant.
(2.) THE prayer for bail for the present applicants Sartaj and Sagir was rejected twice on 19-8-97 and 19-1- 1998. THE last mentioned order was challenged in a criminal appeal before the Supreme Court and an interim order was recorded for their release on bail and were so released under and order dated 14-5- 98. On 12-7-99 the Supreme Court disposed of the appeal slating that the bail order shall continue till framing of charge by the trial Co ur t a nd the Supreme Court left it open for the trial Court to decide whether the appellants would be allowed to continue on bail or not. It appears that the matter came up before the trial Court on 20-9-1999, after the applicants were sent into custody on 27-8-1999 when the charges were framed. THE applicants were on bail, albeit as an interim order from May, 1998 till August, 1999. The trial Judge rejected the prayer on the ground that the High Court rejected the prayers for bail on two occasions and judicial discipline further required that Sessions Judge should not reopen the mat ter. A point were raised by the com plainant before the Court below for delay in the framing of charge against the present applicants. This plea was not ac cepted. Another point was raised before the trial Court to say that they have been threatened and the Court found that these applicants had no direct role in such threatening. Sri Murlidhar submits that the ap plicants were on bail for 15 months and this fact is to be considered in releasing them on bail now and it can be taken as a fresh circumstance.
(3.) 1 find sufficient force in this argu ment. The persons who were released on bail, may be as on interim measure and had not absconded for 15 months are certainly persons who could be released on bail now. Sri Khan submitted that the fear of losing the interim relief had kept the petitioners under a discipline. It is believed that the petitioner under fresh bail order will also keep themselves under the same discipline as any violation of the terms of bail by way of further criminal act or to threaten the witnesses or such allied acts would make them liable for cancella tion of the privileges.;