ORDER
Fakhruddin, J.
1. Though Counsel for the State was having the earlier order passed by this Court on 26-3-2002 but has not produced the same. Not only this, none of the Counsel for parties have disclosed that apart from offences under Sections 201, 302 read with Section 34 of IPC, offences under Sections 302, 376, 377 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of S.C/S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are also there. Both Counsel should have submitted the same at the time of arguing the case, but as they did not do so, this Court has taken that this conduct is a serious in nature. Counsel do not appear only for a particular party but they should appear as the officers of the Court. It is their duty to see that before the proceedings start, they should have well prepared to advance their arguments regarding factual matrix of the case.
2. The matter had come up for hearing on 4-4-2002. On that day also Ms. Singhai had appeared for the State on advance copy. The case was admitted. It was directed that reply, if required, be filed. It was the duty of the Counsel for the State to have gone through the record should have filed reply and obtained definite instructions. The fact that the application of the co-accused was rejected and the reasons for rejection were also given and was also required to be mentioned by the applicant. They are quoted below :–
“A case in Crime No, 2/2002 has been registered in Police Station, Narainpur for the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 302, 376, 377, IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, against the applicant. The Court below has noted that on 5-2-2002 bail of co-accused Satish Kumar, David and Rajendra Kumar Dugga was rejected under Section 439 of the Cr.PC. The Court below further considered the injuries sustained by the prosecutrix, i.e., fracture in left parital bond and also the rapture of hymen.
Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and material available on record this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. The application fails and is accordingly rejected.
After the order was dictated, Counsel for the applicant submitted that at least case diary may be called for. Documents themselves are supplied by Counsel and order has been passed on that basis, hence same is not required.
In view of the order passed hereinabove, the application is rejected at this stage.”
Though at that time the case diary was not there but this time the case diary is there. Time is also there to seek instructions. Government Advocate ought to have sought instructions. If the matter would not have been noticed by this Court, orders would have been passed and factual aspects of this case would not have been correctly placed.
3. The duty of the Counsel for parties is to see that factual aspect of the case, the crime number and offences are correctly described. It is much more important because even if an order for granting bail or otherwise would have been passed in favour of the accused, then also it would not have been of great help to him. In view of the fact that relevant offences like Sections 376, 377 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act in the said crime number would not have been there.
4. Both Counsel have failed in performing their duty. The job of State Counsel should be much more than that of Counsel appearing for the other wide. Responsibility lies on the shoulders of both Counsel.
5. As prayed, opportunity is given to the Counsel and the case was adjourned and directed to be taken after some time.
6. In second half, when the case was taken subsequently, Counsel for both Counsel for parties Shri Jha and Ms. Sharmila Singhai appeared and tendered their unconditional apology, submitting that due to heavy work they could not be noticed this fact. Counsel for parties Shri Jha and Ms. Singhai seem to be more apologetic. Their apology seems to be sincere from the bottom of their heart which is accepted. However, they are advised to be very careful in future while arguing the case before the Court. The proceedings are dropped at this stage. Conduct of the both the Counsel shall however be watched.
7. So far as the merits of the case is concerned, the same has been considered and there is prima facie material against the applicant. This Court has already passed an order on 26-3-2002. The offences alleged are heinous and serious.
8. Having considered the facts and circumstances, material available on record and having heard Counsel for parties at great length and on perusal of the record and also the diary produced, in the opinion of this Court, it is not a case for grant of bail at this stage.
Accordingly, the application fails and is dismissed.
9. The Trial Court is however directed to expedite the trial subject to co-operation of the parties especially with their Counsel. The State Counsel, if required, may depute a special prosecutor. So also the Superintendent of Police will depute the responsible officer for serving summons on the witnesses. The Superintendent of Jail shall produce the accused-persons on the date of hearing and on the dates so fixed. Non-cooperation shall be viewed seriously.
10. Subject to what has been stated above, this petition is dismissed.
Certified copy of this order be handed over to State Counsel for compliance.