Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—In these bail applications, the allegations are of criminal breach of trust and cheating, wherein the complainants allege to have extended payments to the accused in the hope of getting public employment. It may be pointed out that the accused are not government servants so as to examine the case from the point of view of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The accused are alleged to be posing themselves capable of ensuring employment to the complainants in governmental organisations or public posts. The leading bail application No. 1865 of 2007 was taken up on 11th September, 2007 whereupon an order was passed to the following effect :

“Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

A perusal of the F.I.R. which has been lodged by Pradeep Kumar Yadav son of Kishan Yadav clearly states that on the offer made by the accused in the present case he was allured to tender a sum of Rs. 90,000/- each per candidate for being employed in the Army. He also admits that several persons for the said purpose themselves tendered the said amount to the applicant’s husband and the money was transacted through the applicant and his son. The aforesaid admission made in the F.I.R. clearly discloses that an attempt was made by the complainants themselves to obtain employment by fraudulent means. This admission itself amount to a case of criminal offence of having given a bribe. It is strange that after lodging of the F.I.R. no action was taken against the complainant by the investigating agency, inasmuch as they have themselves allegedly abetted the offence. The complainants did not make any attempt to trap the applicant through lawful means. They have rather consciously attempted to obtain employment by offering bribe voluntarily.

Let a copy of this order be made available to the learned Government Advocate for forwarding it to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Lucknow, who shall immediately transmit it to the concerned Police Station for taking necessary action in the matter and an Affidavit be filed within 15 days before this Court.

List on 28.9.2007.”

2. Subsequently, the other four applications were also taken up and in bail application Nos. 5072 and 5074, a similar nature of complaint was made that a monetary transaction had taken place for extending benefits of public employment in the Railways. On the same footing are the allegations contained in bail application Nos. 821 of 2007 and 3742 of 2007 wherein employment is sought in the Secretariat of the Government of Uttar Pradesh at Lucknow. The essence of all the complaints is, therefore, failure to get gainful employment sought to be acquired on payment of money in public offices. During the course of arguments the said issue, as to whether the complainants themselves had abetted the offence by making the disclosure as contained in the F.I.R.s or not, that this Court had called upon the State to answer the querries raised vide the aforesaid order dated 11th September, 2007. The matter was listed on 17th September, 2007 when time was sought by the State to file a response. The time sought for by the State was again extended and the matter was directed to come up on 28.9.2007. On the said date, the learned Government Advocate Sri Mahendra Pratap Yadav made a request for a further adjournment and the following order was passed on 28.9.2007 :

“Sri Mahendra Pratap Yadav, learned Government Advocate has made a request that since the issue involved in this case as well as in the connected cases are of certain public importance and have wide ramifications, therefore, the matter be adjourned in order to enable the learned counsels to address the Court extensively on this issue.

On the joint request of learned counsel for the parties, put up on 4th October, 2007.”

3. Two more adjournments were sought on 4th October, 2007 and finally on 9th October, 2007 whereafter the matter was heard on 11th October, 2007 with the assistance of Sri M.P. Yadav,