Hon'ble SHETHNA, J. - (1.) AS per the order dated 8/10/1998 passed by this Court, learned counsel Shri Shah for the petitioner accused produced the certified copy of the order dated 17/9/1998 passed by Shri Babu Ali Saiyad, RHJS, Addl. Sessions Judge, Bali, in Cr. Misc. (Bail) Case No. 224/98 filed by four other co accused. The same is ordered to be taken on record.
(2.) ON the basis of the finding recorded by the learned Judge in para 6 of the order dated 17/9/1998 passed in Cr. Misc. (Bail) Case No. 224/98, learned counsel Mr. Shah for the petitioner submitted that the present accused petitioner, who is husband of the complainant-wife be granted anticipatory bail. The finding is reproduced as under: ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMMITED]... It may be stated that joint bail petition bearing No. 190/98 filed by all the five accused under Sec. 438 Cr. P. C. including the present petitioner-husband was rejected by the same learned Judge on 28. 8. 98 for the reasons recorded by him in para 6 of that order and that also I would like to reproduce, which is as under :- ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMMITED]... Thus, the learned Judge earlier rejected the anticipatory bail application filed under Sec. 438 Crpc of all the five accused by giving strong reasons in para 6 of the order dt. 28. 8. 98. Surprisingly within less than twenty days, he allowed the bail application filed by four other co accused under Sec. 439 Crpc by giving absolutely contradictory reasons than the reasons assigned by him in the order dated 17. 9. 98 passed in bail application filed under Sec. 438 Crpc. It is a serious matter, which must be thoroughly enquired into and investigated on the administrative side by way of holding a Departmental Enquiry against the learned Judge. It is only after the learned Judge granted regular bail on 17. 9. 98 to four other co accused by a reasoned order by which the learned Judge has almost decided the case before the evidence was led and the trial was over which was highly improper on his part. There after, the present petitioner has filed this bail petition u/s 438 Crpc. The law on this point is very well settled. The Court has to assign only brief reasons while granting or rejecting bail and elaborate discussion should have been avoided but that principle is completely ignored by the learned Judge while granting bail to co-accused on 17. 9. 1998. It may be stated that though the anticipatory bail petition of all the five accused including the present petitioner was rejected on 28. 8. 98 and the certified copy of the same was already received on 3. 9. 98, the present petitioner has filed this bail petition under Sec. 438 Crpc on 5. 10. 98, only after the same learned Judge allowed the regular bail to four other co-accused on 17. 9. 98 and on the basis of the reasons recorded by the learned Judge in para 6 of the order dt. 17. 9. 1998 passed in Cr. Misc. (Bail) Case No. 224/98, a submission was made that the accused, who is a Govt. officer working in Air For- ce, be granted anticipatory bail. Law on bail is very well settled. The Court has to take the averments made in the FIR at its face value and considering the averments made in the FIR, the learned Judge himself rejected the bail petition filed by the present accused alongwith four other co-accused on 28/8/1998 and in my opinion rightly so. How and under what circumstances, the learned Judge has passed the subsequent order dt. 17/9/1998 in regular bail application filed under Sec. 439 Crpc, is a matter of investigation. The reasons assigned by him in para 6 of the order dated 17/9/1998 have to be completely ignored because the learned Judge has travelled beyond his jurisdiction in deciding that regular bail petition.
(3.) BEFORE parting, I must state that the manner in which an attempt is made to obtain anticipatory bail from this Court disentitles the petitioner from any order particularly when he is charged with the offences u/ss 498-A, 320, 323, 342. 147 and 148 IPC, though he is a Govt. servant. For the reasons stated above, this bail petition is required to be rejected and accordingly it is rejected. I have refrained myself from having any elaborate discussion while rejecting this bail petition. The office is directed to place the matter before Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice for taking appropriate action in the matter. A copy of this order be also kept in the service book of the learned Judge. ;