High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Ratan Singh v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27304 of 2007  RD-AH 18850 (13 December 2007)
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. 43
Criminal Misc. IInd Bail Application No. 27304 of 2007
Ratan Singh son of Sri Bali Ramesh
Resident of Nagla Hasanpur
Post Chata P.S. Kosi Kalan
District Mathura..................................................... Applicant (In Jail)
State of U.P.......................................................... Respondent
Hon'ble B.A. Zaidi, J.
1.Heard Sri Rajesh Pachauari, Advocate for applicant Ratan Singh and Sri S.A.H. Rizvi, Addl. Government Advocate for the State.
2.This is a second bail application of the applicant in Case Crime No. 2 of 2007 (Crl. Case No. 403 of 2007) under sections 394, 411 I.P.C. Police Station Kosi Kalan District Mathura.
3.The order dated 17.9.2007 passed on the earlier bail application of the accused is as below :-
"Hon'ble B.A. Zaidi, J.
1.Sri R.K. Dubey, Advocate is present for the applicant and Sri S.D.Tripathi, Addl. Government Advocate for the State are heard.
2.Applicant-accused Ratan Singh, who is being tried for charges under Sections 394, 411 I.P.C. in Case Crime No. 2 of 2007 Police Station Kosi Kalan district Mathura has come to this Court for bail.
3.These proceedings are pending against him before the Judicial Magistrate, Chata, Mathura in which statement of P.W. 1 has already been recorded. Since the trial is on the way, it will not be appropriate to grant bail to the applicant but the trial court is directed to fix this case twice in each week till decided.
4.A copy of this order be sent to the District & Sessions Judge, Mathura, through fax and poste haste by the office for sending to Judicial Magistrate, Chata for information and compliance.
5.This bail application disposed of accordingly."
4. In compliance with the order, the Magistrate Chhata is fixing the case twice a week but during the course of the last 3 months, only one witness has been examined. The purpose and object of the earlier order was to expedite the proceedings, so that the case may be decided as soon as possible. That desideratum is being frustrated, though, there has been strict compliance, of the order. What is, therefore, happening, is that, the words of the order, are being followed, while the spirit is being crucified.
5. I hope the Magistrate will realise that the purpose and purport of the order is to accelerate the decision of the case, and he must proceed with that objective in view. If the prosecution is not active and alert, the Magistrate must write to the appropriate authority about the same, and should take all other measures, to expedite the case, because, the accused is in Jail.
6. As regards the argument of the counsel for the applicant that P.W. 1 has not supported the prosecution version and the applicant is entitled to bail, it needs to be mentioned, that, one swallow does not make a summer and other witnesses, have yet to come.
7. With these observations, this bail application is rejected.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.