B.J.SHETHNA, J. - (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) MR . Pradeep Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has committed grave error in rejecting the anticipatory bail application of the present accused petitioner on 19.8.1998. Mr. Bhati, learned Public Prosecutor for the State, however, submitted that the co-accused anticipatory bail application was also rejected by this Court (Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.C. Mital) on 3.7.1998. But Mr. Shah pointed out that the regular bail application of the co-accused has already been granted by the learned Sessions Judge on 5th August, 1998, therefore, he ought to have granted anticipatory bail to the present accused petitioner. Ordinarily, when one of the co-accused is released on regular bail, then there cannot be any difficulty in granting anticipatory bail to the other accused. It can only be denied when special case is made out, which is not there in this case. It appears that in a most cursory manner, the learned Sessions Judge rejected the anticipatory bail application on 19.8.1998, though he himself granted regular bail to the co-accused on 5th August, 1998 only. This type of orders are adding to the backlog in this Court. It is hope and trust that the learned Sessions Judge should be more careful in deciding the case. It should not be decided in a most laconic manner.
(3.) UNDER the circumstances, I think it just and proper to grant anticipatory bail to the accused petitioner.;