Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 917 (PAT)

Md. Jasim @ Sanjay v. State Of Bihar

2002-08-23

R.S.GARG

body2002
Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioners, who were granted regular bail by the Incharge Judge had to come to this Court because the said orders granting bail was set aside by the Sessions Judge on 26.8.1999. It appears that in a matter of a private complaint, warrants were issued therefore, the accused-persons appeared in the Court made an application for the bail and the Judge Incharge allowed the application and directed release of the applicants on bail. The order dated 26.8.1999 unfortunately is not palatable, it makes certain observations against the Subordinate Judicial Officer without taking into consideration that the higher Courts in fact are the guardians of the subordinate Courts and the subordinate Judges. A Judge must know that where his pen should stop and what he should not write in his order. In the present case the learned Sessions Judge while setting aside the order granted by the learned trial Court observed as under : "The learned lower Court while granting bail to the OPs has not considered the easily granted bail to them for the reasons best known to him and, thus, I am constraint to hold that certainly bail order in question has been passed on other than judicial consideration." 3. These observations by no stretch of imagination can give any concession in favour of the learned Sessions Judge nor can be approved. Barring the conjectures and surmises the learned Sessions Judge had nothing before him, no record was submitted before him that the learned Judge, who granted bail passed the orders on some consideration other than the judicial considerations. When the matter came-up for hearing before this Court, this Court required the complainant to justify these observations. On 8.7.2002 the learned counsel for the non- applicant No. 2 submitted that the allegations against the concerned Judicial Magistrate were made with a sense of responsibility and further that the present applicant could manage to secure the orders from the concerned Judge. This Court required the non-applicant No. 2 to file a detailed affidavit in this Court showing the particular material on strength of which such allegations were made by the non-applicant No. 2 against the trial Judge. This Court also directed that if the allegations made by the non-applicant No. 2 are found to be incorrect, false or misleading this Court may draw contempt proceedings against the non-applicant No. 2. 4. This Court also directed that if the allegations made by the non-applicant No. 2 are found to be incorrect, false or misleading this Court may draw contempt proceedings against the non-applicant No. 2. 4. Today learned counsel for the non-applicant No. 2 submits that after having some discussion with the non-applicant No. 2, he himself has formed an opinion that the non-applicant No. 2 is too simple to understand the. things. In nutshell, the non- applicant No. 2 has not filed any affidavit before this Court to justify the tall claim made on 8.7.2002 that they were making, the allegations against a judicial Offieer with a sense of responsibility specially that the present applicants could manage to secure an order from the concerned Judge. 5. The manner in which the non-applicant No. 2 has maligned and condemned the concerned Judge deserves condemnation from this Court. Even if the non-applicant No. 2 is a simpleton and does not understand the ways, games and the rules of the life then too no liberty can be given to her to make such absurd insinuation and imputations against a Judicial Officer. Taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned counsel for the non-applicant No. 2, however, I do not draw any contempt proceedings against the non-applicant No. 2. 6. This Court, however, must inform the learned Sessions Judge that unless positive material is brought on the record such loose observations should not be made by a senior man of the status of the Sessions Judge. When such loose remarks are made in a very casual and cavalier manner it shocks the confidence of the subordinates. For the higher officials it is also to be seen that a subordinate officer always looks for and claims protection from the higher judicial officers. If a wrong is committed by a judicial officer while passing a judicial order then such an order may be set aside by the higher authority/officer but such personal remarks should not be made. After going through the complete records I am unable to hold that the order dated 24.12.1998 passed by Sri B.K.Singh, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class was for any other consideration. After going through the complete records I am unable to hold that the order dated 24.12.1998 passed by Sri B.K.Singh, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class was for any other consideration. It is to be seen from the records that the accused-persons, who were required to appear before the Court in response to warrants if had not moved the application for grant of regular bail they would have been sent to jail. A Judge Incharge is not appointed Incharge only to adjourn the cases, a Incharge holds the charge of a particular Court for a particular day/days and is entitled to exercise the powers of the original Court. 7. After considering the totality of the circumstances if the learned Judge had granted the regular bail in favour of the present applicant no wrong can be found with the said order. 8. The order dated 24.12.1998 deserves to and is accordingly set aside. 9. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge wherever they are posted.