1986 Supreme(Raj) 583
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Gopal Krishna Sharma, J.
Gopal Krishna S/O Pana Lal - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 1812 of 1986.
Decided On : 23-07-1986
Advocates:
For the Petitioner:Arvind Kumar Gupta, Advocate.
For the Respondent: S.N. Kumawat and S.B. Mathur, Public Prosecutor.
A person who has been arrested or is going to be arrested has a right to apply for bail to a competent court of law, and the court is also expected of doing justice after hearing the accused as well as the State Government.
Headnote:
BAIL - SECTION 438, CR.PC - DISOBEDIENCE OF COURT ORDERS - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR - FAILURE TO PRODUCE CASE DIARY - NOTICE OF DISOBEDIENCE ISSUED - BAIL GRANTED.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Gopal Krishna, filed an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC). The Public Prosecutor, Mr. S.N. Kumawat, was directed by the court to produce the case diary on 9th July 1986. However, he failed to do so despite repeated adjournments.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Public Prosecutor had disobeyed the court's order to produce the case diary. The court also noted that this was not an isolated incident, but a routine practice of the Public Prosecutors to avoid producing case diaries before the court.
Issues: 1. Whether the Public Prosecutor had disobeyed the court's order to produce the case diary? 2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to bail in the absence of the case diary?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Public Prosecutor had disobeyed the court's order to produce the case diary. The court also held that the petitioner was entitled to bail in the absence of the case diary, as the State Government had failed to oppose the bail application.
Final Decision: The court issued a notice of disobedience to the Public Prosecutor, Mr. S.N. Kumawat, for disobeying the court's order. The court also granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, Gopal Krishna, on certain conditions.
JUDGMENT
1. - This bail application has been presented under Section 438, Cr.PC.
2. On 9th July, J986, Mr. S.N. Kumawat, Public Prosecutor appeared in the Court on behalf of the State Government. Hi was directed on that date by Justice Dave to call the case-diary in this case. Thereafter, the case was listed today. When today Mr. Kumawat, Public Prosecutor was asked to submit the case-diary, he replied that he has not received the same.
3. This case was called at 11 a.m. When the case-diary was not produced by Mr. Kumawat Public Prosecutor, Mr. Shivraj Behari Mathur, Government Advocate was called. He was also apprised of the position as to how the orders of this Court are disobeyed and flouted by the Public Prosecutors. 1 also directed him to call the Advocate General, if he was available. Mr. Mathur desired that 10 minutes time be given to him, so that, he might call the Advocate General, I then kept the file and asked Mr. Mathur why 10 minutes, but, time was given to him upto 4 p.m. The whole idea was to call the Advocate General and bring it to his notice as to what is going on in the Office of Government Advocates and further as to what extent the orders of this Court are flouted.
4. This is not one instance, but, I am in knowledge of so many cases in which (he Public Prosecutors were asked to produce the case diaries, but, in spite of granting so many adjournments, the case-diaries were never put up before the Court. This indicates that the Public Prosecutors who appear on behalf of the State Government, do not want that the Court should do justice here. Inspite of granting time on so many occasions, they used to hold the case-diaries with them and do not permit the Court to see it. It means that their intention is that the Court should not do and impart justice.
5. In this case also, on 9th July 1986, Mr. Kumawat was directed to produce the case-diary. The case then came up before the Court on 18th July, 1986. On that date, none appeared on behalf of the State Government. This shows highest disregards for the Court by the Government Advocates. Mr. Mathur argued that the Government Advocates have always highest regards for the Court. Really, this is the way of showing highest regards to the Court. Nobody appeared on behalf of the State Government on 18th July, 1986, when the case was called. The result was that on 18th July, 1986, the case was again fixed for 21st July, 1;986. There after, today, i.e. 23rd July, 1986, this case has been taken up, and again the case diary has not been produced. This is the way of working of the Government Advocate Office, where the Public Prosecutors always try to avoid to produce the case diaries in the Court.
6. Mr. Mathur also argued that their Office should not be misunderstood by the Court, and that they are very sincere to the Court. There is no question of misunderstanding. The Government Advocates are sincere but to the Government, their employer. It may be expected that they should be sincere in their work also. Mr. Mathur further added that the Government Advocates always extend full cooperation to the Court. It is the instance of showing co-operation, by not producing the case diary even after specific direction of this Court ? In the past, on the number of times, I have noticed this type of patent behaviour of the Public Prosecutors before the Court; and they never produce the case diaries in time before the Court. This is nothing but clear disobedience of the orders of this Court, by the Public Prosecutors, I would not like to encourage this type of disobedience.
7. A person who has either been detained in jail or going to be detained, but, in both the circumstances, the question is of liberty of a citizen. If some power is given to the police to investigate a case and arrest a person without a warrant, then, they must do it sincerely and honestly. But, a person who has been arrested or is going to be arrested, has a right to apply for bail to a competent court of law, and the cour
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
