The court emphasized the importance of following the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the binding nature of decisions made by higher courts. The court also highlighted the need for judicial officers to have a proper understanding of the law and to adhere to the principles of the rule of law.

ORDER :- Petitioner herein had earlier filed Cri. M. C. No. 2952/2007 under Section 482, Cr. P. C. seeking quashing of order dated 31st May, 2007 and 25th July, 2007 passed by Sh. Rakesh Tewari, Addl. Sessions Judge in Criminal Complaint Case, whereby he had issued non-bailable warrants and process under Sections 82 and 83, Cr. P. C. against the petitioner.

2. In that petition, it was also prayed that Addl. Sessions Judge be directed to bail out the petitioner in accordance with law and petitioner undertook that he will appear before the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, if directed and co-operate with the prosecution of the case on the next date of hearing, that is, 19th September, 2007.

3. On that petition, this Court on 17th September, 2007 passed the following order :-

"Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the execution of process under Section 82/83, Cr. P. C. issued against the petitioner is stayed till 19th September, 2007 provided the petitioner deposit a sum of Rs. 2,500/- as adjournment costs with the trial Court by that date and appear before the trial Court on that day."

4. On 19th September, 2007 as directed by this Court, the petitioner appeared before the trial "Court who passed the following order, relevant portion of which reads as under :-

"Accused has appeared along with the counsel and has moved the bail application and annexed the copy of the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dated 17-9-07 in which he sought the stay of the order dated 31-5-07 and 25-7-07 whereby the process under S. 82/83, Cr. P. C. was issued against the accused. The time requisite for process under S. 82, Cr. P. C. had already expired on 29-8-07 when the process server returned the execution reports of the said process. Today the case was fixed for recording of the statement of the process server so that the accused could have been declared as a Proclaimed Offender and the case should have been fixed for recording the evidence under S. 299, Cr. P. C. Although on 17-9-07 there was no cause of action in favour of the accused before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi for stay of the said proceedings which were already executed but I take the spirit of the order and directed the accused to deposit the amount as cost as mentioned in the order which he has deposited with this Court."

5. Thereafter, trial Court heard arguments on bail application and rejected the bail application of the petitioner and took him into custody.

6. Now, the present ball application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner and notice of the same was issued to State, as well as to respondent No. 2 and the trial Court record was also summoned.

7. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that, in terms of the order dated 17th September, 2007, petitioner appeared before the trial Court and deposited the costs of Rs. 2,500/-, but the trial Court rejected the bail application, making certain observations as mentioned above. The trial Court had no business to make such comments and it deliberately disregarded the order, dated 17th September, 2007 and rejected the bail application of the petitioner.

8. With regard to the above observation made by the trial Court, prima facie, it appears that the trial Court was not at ease with the order dated 17th September, 2007 passed by this Court and the observation made by the trial Court are uncalled for, as it cast aspertions on the functioning of this Court and the same have also been deprecated by the learned counsel for the respondents.

9. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 2, BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. had filed a complaint under Section 151 read with Section 154 of the Electricity Act, 2003 against one Raju (user), the present petitioner on 13th April, 2007. After registration of the case, the Addl. Sessions Judge listed the matter on 7th May, 2007 for presummoning evidence. On that date, presummoning evidence was filed by way of affidavits and the same was closed and the tria