Jasbir Singh vs State of Haryana

Dr. Sarojnei Saksena, J.

By this order three bail petitions (Crl. Misc. Nos. 14340M, 14342M and 14605M of 1995) filed by Mohinder Singh, Lakhar Singh, Amrik Singh and Jasbir Singh are being decided.

The petitioners are facing trial under sections 307/325/324/323/148/149 IPC. Earlier while deciding Crl. Misc. No. 18773M of 1994 bail petition filed on behalf of Jasbir Singh, Kashmir Singh, Amrik Singh, Ajaib Singh and Harjinder Singh was declined by this Court by order dated December 16, 1994. On August 11, 1995, Harjinder Singh was granted bail by this Court in Crl. Misc. No. 10858M of 1995.

Vide ordered dated April 4, 1995 in Crl. Misc. No. 3310M of 1995, the Sessions Court was directed to conclude the trial by the end of August 1995. At that time, the date fixed for persecution evidence was July 27, 1995. On this date Mr. Vinod Jain, Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, recorded evidence of four prosecution witnesses, who were present. As none else was present, the case was adjourned to November 2, 1995. On this count, the petitioners have again approached this Court for granting them bail. They have also relied on the doctor''s statement recorded in the aforesaid sessions case.

At this stage, it is not desirable to reconsider the facts of the case or to appraise the evidence recorded so far in the aforesaid sessions trial.

As a show cause notice was sent to Mr. Vinod Jain, Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, for not concluding the trial by the end of August 1995, Mr. Jain has submitted his reply, wherein he has mentioned that now he is pre poning the date and by the end of October 1995 he will conclude the trial. In view of these facts, the prayer for bail is declined in these three bail petitions.

In his reply, Mr. Vinod Jain, Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, has admitted that he received this Court''s order dated April 4, 1995, wherein he was directed to conclude the trial by the end of August 1995, but his lame excuse is that by mistake and by inadvertence he could not read the order. Further, according to him, on July 27, 1995, neither defence counsel nor Public Prosecutor informed him of the contents of this order. When the order was received by him and he chose not to read it, who else is required to inform him of his duty to go through the orders of the High Court. This shows his utter disregard verging to disobedient of the orders of the High Court. No doubt, he has tendered his unconditional apology, but considering the utter apathy and carelessness with which he has conveniently brushed aside the order of the High Court, in my view the gravity of the misconduct and disobedience demands a punitive action. Considering his unconditional apology, the action will be tampered with mercy. Accordingly, for this lapse Mr. Vinod Jain, Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, is given character roll warning, which should be recorded in his service book.

Copy of this order be sent to the Registrar for compliance and to Mr. Vinod Jain, Additional Sessions Judge, for information.