Heard Ms. Mathkar for the applicant, Mr. Pangam for respondent No.1 and Mr. adkarni, learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3.

2. Rule. By consent heard forthwith.

3. By this application, the applicant seeks cancellation of bail granted to respondent No.1 by the Sessions Judge, North Goa, Panaji by order dated 23rd August, 2012. The applicant has also sought further relief to the extent of holding an inquiry against the learned Sessions Judge for not disposing of the matter expeditiously.

4. Since the issue regarding delay in disposal of the anticipatory bail was raised in the application, we deemed it appropriate to take up the matter although the application seeking only cancellation of bail or anticipatory bail would lie before learned Single Judge in terms of the Bombay High Court, Appellate Side Rules. Moreover, learned Single Judge before whom the matter was placed, ordered that the same be placed before Division Bench. Even Mr. Pangam, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.1 stated that he has no objection if we take up the matter and lay down some guidelines regarding disposal of the anticipatory bail applications filed before the Sessions Courts.

5. Briefly, the facts leading to the filing of the present application are as under :

An FIR No.113/2009 dated 24.7.2009 was registered at Pernem Police Station at the instance of Assistant Director of Education under Section 406 r/w. Section 334 of Indian Penal Code. In the said report, respondent No.1 and other members of the erstwhile School Managing Committee of Durga English School were shown as accused. The allegation was that an amount of Rs.18.00 lakhs sanctioned by the Directorate of Education for the purpose of upkeep and maintenance of the school was misappropriated and in the said misappropriation, the said accused were involved.

The applicant herein filed Criminal Writ Petition No.41/2012, inter alia, making a grievance that investigation was not being carried out properly by the investigating agency. In the course of hearing, we noticed that the investigation was not being carried out properly as it ought to have been carried out and issued directions to file affidavit by the Inspector General of Police and accordingly, affidavits were filed. Ultimately, by Judgment dated 5th September, 2012, the writ petition was disposed of, and the statement made by the learned Public Prosecutor that the investigation would be completed within a period of 3 months was accepted.

6. Respondent No.1 herein filed an application seeking anticipatory bail before the learned Sessions Judge on 29th March, 2012.

7. Since a grievance has been made that there has been an inordinate delay in disposal of the bail application, we deem it appropriate to refer in some detail to various dates to which the said application was adjourned.

8. On 29.3.2012, respondent No.1 filed anticipatory bail application in respect of FIR No.113/09. On the same day, notice was issued to the respondent returnable on 31st March, 2012, on which date, respondent/State sought time and on 3.4.2012 reply was filed on behalf of the respondent and arguments were also heard. Thereafter, the matter was fixed on 7.4.2012 for order. However, the order could not be passed and the matter was adjourned to 18.4.2012. At that stage, an intervention application came to be filed by the present applicant, of which reply was sought on 21.4.2012. Reply was accordingly filed. Ultimately, the application came to be allowed by order dated 11.5.2012. It appears that the learned Sessions Judge was transferred to the South Goa, Margao from June, 2012.

9. The bail application was placed before the new incumbent on 27.6.2012, on which date, the learned Sessions Judge was on leave and, as such, it was adjourned to 12.7.2012, on which day, the matter was adjourned for rearguments. On 20.7.2012, arguments were heard and the matter was fixed on 24.7.2012 for order by directing the intervenor to fil