I.A. Ansari, J.

1. This is an application, made under Section 439 CrPC, by the accused-petitioner, namely, Sri Sevi Tao, in connection with Dimapur East Police Station Case No. 342/2010 (G.R. Case No. 726/2010) under Section 364(A) of the IPC.

2. Perused the above application and materials on record.

3. Heard Mr. D. K. Mishra, learned Senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, and Ms. T. Khro, learned Government Advocate, Nagaland, appearing on behalf of the respondents.

4. This bail application reveals a glaringly noticeable picture of the Mure of constitutional guarantee provided to every accused person under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This failure raises a serious question as to whether the Government, in the State of Nagaland, has been able to run the State in accordance with the requirements of the Constitution. In the present case, while the Executive has miserably failed, the picture of judiciary is also not free from blemish. In this sorrow state of affairs, the responsibility lies more with the Executive than anyone else inasmuch as a sense of fear appears to have gripped the society in the State of Nagaland and has made even the judiciary succumb to such fear and, unless something is promptly done to arrest the deteriorating situation, the consequences following therefrom may prove disaster.

5. This is a case, wherein the petitioner was arrested, as an accused, in the case aforementioned, on 06.01.2011, on the basis of an FIR lodged on 21.11.2010. Strangely enough, the accused was brought into judicial custody as late as on 22.01.2011. In the meanwhile, however, as alleged by the accused, the accused was forced, in the police custody, to sign a self-cheque, which was deposited in the Bank, where the accused has his account and, then, a sum of Rs. 6,78,000/- was withdrawn from the petitioner's account on 18.01.2011 and the said amount was shown to have been seized from the petitioner without disclosing, in the seizure list, that the cheque was obtained from the petitioner by force and the money was withdrawn by the police. The money, so seized, was released on the basis of the order, dated 01.03.2011, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dimapur. It is strange that the learned Court below did not raise any query as to how the money, in question, could be seized, in cash, from the Bank account of the accused, while he was in police custody. Even if the accused had given the cheque, in question, voluntarily, the fact of the matter remains that such a cheque did not empower the police to withdraw the money from the Bank, while the accused was in custody, and seize the same. These illegal acts of the police were, unfortunately, ignored by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dimapur.

6. If what is alleged by the accused is true, it is not conceivable as to how the police could have seized the money on the basis of the cheque aforementioned as money realized by the accused by resorting to ransom. What followed, thereafter, reveals a more disturbing state of affairs inasmuch as a news report was published, on 01.03.2011, in the Nagaland Post. The relevant portion of the news report as under:

Dimapur, Feb 28 (NPN): GPRN/NSCN has appealed to the Nagaland Bar Association and Dimapur Bar Association not to allow any law firm or law practitioners under them to represent the duo involved in the kidnapping of businessman Hariram Gupta on November 25, 2010.

7. On the following day, i.e. 02.03.2011, Ms. Rongsenla Jamir, learned counsel, representing the petitioner, in GR Case No. 726/2010 (Dimapur East Police Station Case No. 342/2010), withdrew from the case. The learned Court below, which as dealing with the matter, did not appear to have enquired from the counsel for the accused as to why she was unwilling to represent the accused nor did it record as to why it was allowing the learned counsel to withdraw her from the case. Thus, the right of the accused, guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22, to be all