( 1 ). This matter arises out" of suo moto court action in calling upon the two respondents as to why their applications for their release on bail be not rejected. They are accused of offences under sections 366/376/342/506/34 Indian Penal Code. By two separate orders the learned Additional Sessions Judge had released both the respondents on bail. The order of this Court issuing show cause notice is dated 21 November 1992 and it is appropriate to set out that order in full showing the circumstances as to why the court thought it fit to take suo moto action:-

"it appeared in the National newspapers that the respondent Vishnu Pandit had been arrested for having allegedly committed rape on a 35 year old wife of an Accountant working in D. D. A. His driver Baljeet was also taken into custody by the police. The allegations were that the woman was raped twice by Vishnu Pandit, first in front of her 15 year old son and at that time when Vishnu Pandit was molesting the woman his driver Baljeet kept a pistol on son s head. This was on 9 November 1992. Vishnu Pandit again committed rape on that woman on 11 November 1992 in front of her husband. The police version as given in the newspapers was that Vishnu Pandit first struck an acquaintance with the woman in a nursing home when she bad come to see her ailing mother-in-law. He met the woman and her son outside the nursing home and on the pretext of giving them a lift to their house in his Maruti van be took them to his office in Dilshad Garden and committed rape on the woman. Yet further two days later he again took up that woman when at that time she was accompanied with her husband and again she was raped by Vishnu Pandit at the same spot. Both Vishnu Pandit and his driver Baljeet have since been released on bail under the orders of Mr. B. S. Chaudhary, Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdara, Delhi. The order of bail in the case of Baljeet was passed on 16 November 1992 and in the case of Vishnu Pandit on 18 November 1992. I sent for the records granting bail to both Vishnu Pandit and Baljeet. The accused are accused of having committed offences under sections 366/376/342/506/34 Indian Penal Code These are all cognisable offences and non-bailable. In the case of an offence under section 376 sentence can be imprisonment for life. The impugned order in the case of Vishnu Pandit would show that the woman who has been raped is Kamlesh Arya and the order records that she argued her case for about 20 minutes without fear. This fearlessness on her part appears to be a circumstance which has gone against her. The order would show as if the learned Additional Sessions Judge has already disbelieved the version of the lady though yet he remarked "without going into the merits Of the case, lest it may prejudice to the either party later on, I feel the totality of the circumstances of the matter and the facts as brought by the prosecution uptil now are convincing to the extent that the case for bail of the accused is made out. "but I hardly find any justification for the learned Additional Sessions Judge to come to this conclusion. As noted above, accused Baljeet is also accused of offences under same sections of Indian Penal Code. As to what role had been assigned to him by the prosecution the order releasing him on bail is silent. The whole of the order reads as under :-

"in view of the role assigned to the petitioner, and that he is stated to be driver and as per submission be remained outside the room throughout. In view of the circumstances, petitioner is adnutted to bail on furnishing a bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000. 00 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. "considering the gravity of the offence and the dreadful manner in which it was committed the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not examined the possibility of the accused terrorising the witnesses. We cannot think of a more depraved act against the dignity of a woman and the approach