JUDGMENT
B.J. Shethna, J.
1. As per the order dated 8.10.1998 passed by this court, learned Counsel Shri Shah for the petitioner accused produced the certified copy of the order dated 17.9.98 passed by Shri Babu Ali Saiyad, RHJS, Addl. Sessions Judge, bali, in Cr. Misc. (Bail) Case No. 224/98 filed by four other co accused. The same is ordered to be taken on record.
2. On the basis of the finding recorded by the learned Judge in para 6 of the order dated 17.9.98 passed in Cr. Misc. (Bail) Case No. 224/98, learned Counsel Mr. Shah for the petitioner submitted that the present accused petitioner, who is husband of the complainant-wife be granted anticipatory bail. The finding is reproduced as under:
;g Li”V gS fd ifjokfnuh ds ifjokn ds vuqlkj ;g ?kVuk mlds lkFk nwljh ckj gqbZ] ysfdu izFke ckj tks ifjokn is’k fd;k x;k Fkk mldh dksbZ izfr vuqla/kku es lfEefyr gqbZ ugh gS] ek= /kkjk 125 na-iza-la- dh dk;Zokgh ds ifjokn dh izfr vuqlaa/kku vf/kdkjh }kjk jsdkM+Z ij yh xbZ gS ftles ngst ds fy, ekjihV djuk o ifjokfnuh dk pkj ekg ls ihgj es jguk crk; gS ,oa 500@& :i;s Loa; ds [kpZ ds fy, o 250@& ifjokfnuh ds cPps ds [kpZ ds fy, ekaxs x;s gS ,oa ,d bdjkjukek is’k fd;k x;k gS ftles jkthukek vo’; fd;k x;k gS] ftles ifjokfnuh dsk ngst ds fy, rax o ijs’kku djus dk bdjkj fot;flag }kjk fy[k dj fn;k x;k gks tks ifjokfnuh dh ifr gS A——————–Li”V gS fd ifjokfnuh dk’r dk dk;Z djus dks rS;kj ugh Fks ,oa blh ds fy, og vius ifr ds ?kj ls Hkkx dj vius ihgj pyh xbZ ,oa ;g izdj.k izkFkhZx.k ds fo:) ntZ djk;k x;k A ,slh fLFkfr es izdj.k ds rF;ks ls ;g Li”V gS fd izfrokfnuh vius ifr ds ?kj jguk ugh pkgrh gS ,oa ckj&ckj vius firk ds ?kj vkdj :d tkrh gSA pksV izfrosnu i= ls izfrokfnuh ds ‘kjhj ij 6 pksVs vkuk n`f”Vxkspj gksrk gS ysfdu ;s pksVs izfrokfnuh ds ck;s vaxwBs ij] cka;s Ldsiqyk ds uhps o nkfguh tka?k ij crkbZ x;h gS ,oa chp dh vaxqyh ij crkbZ x;h gS tks ek= [kjksps gS ,oa ;s [kjksps fdlh Hkh dk’rdkj ds dk’r dk;Z djrs le; Qly ls Hkh jxM+ ds dkj.k vk ldrs gSA ,slh fLFkfr es mDr pksVks ek= ls ;g ugh dgk tk ldrk gS fd ifjokfnuh ds lkFk es ngst izkfIr ds fy, ekjihV gks x;h gks A ,slh fLFkfr es izdj.k ds feF;k jfpr gksus dh laHkkouk ls Hkh bUdkj ugh fd;k tk ldrk gS Abruk gh ugh izdj.k es vHkh vuqla/kku tsj rjoht gS vRk% izdj.k ds vuqla/kku o vuoh{kk es le; yxus dh iw.kZ laHkkouk gS ,oa izkFkhZx.k fnukad 14-9-98 ls gh tsy es gS A ,slh fLFkfr es tcfd izdj.k es ek= rhu lky dh ltk gh gS] izdj.k ds rF;ks dks ns[krs gq, eS izkFkhZx.k dks tekur ij NksM+uk U;k;ksfpr le>rk gwWA
3. It may be stated that joint bail petition bearing No. 190/98 filed by all the five accused under Section 438 CrPC including the present petitioner-husband was rejected by the same learned Judge on 28.8.98 for the reasons recorded by him in para 6 of that order and that also I would like to reproduce, which is as under:
;g Lohdkj fd;k x;k gS fd esjh ekrk }kjk vkidks ngst de ykus ds fy, rax fd;k x;k Fkk blds fy, ge {kek pkgrs gSA——————bl rjg bl bdjkjukes es vfHk;qDrx.k }kjk ifjokfnuh ds lkFk es ngst dh ekax dks ysdj rax o ijs’kku djuk Lohdkj fd;k gS ,oa lkekftd O;fDr;ks dks le>kus ij ngst u ekaxus vkSj rax u djus o ekjihV u djus o [ksrh dk dke ugh djus ds laca/k es ——Li”V gS fd izkFkhZx.k us iwoZ es Hkh ifjoknhuh ds lkFk ngst izkfIr gsrq dzwjrkiw.kZ O;ogkj fd;k Fkk A——pksV izfrosnu i= fnukad 12-8-98 ds voyksdu ls Li”V gS fd izse daoj ds ‘kjhj ij 6 pksVs vk;h gqbZ gS A tks bl rF; dk Toyar mnkgj.k gS fd ifjoknhuh ds lkFk es izkFkhZx.k }kjk vekuqf”kd O;ogkj fd;k x;k gS ,oa ekjihV dj mls ngst ykus ds fy, rax o ijs’kku fd;k x;k gS A vr% izfrokfnuh ds lkFk ckj&ckj ngst izkfIr gsrq mls ekjihV dj rax o ijs’kku djuk izkFkhZx.k dk ,d is’kk cu x;k gS A,slh fLFkfr es] ,sls vijk/kh;ks dks vfxze tekur ij NksM+uk fdlh Hkh lwjr es U;ks;fpr ugh dgk tk ldrk gS A
4. Thus, the learned Judge earlier rejected the anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 CrPC of all the five accused by giving strong reasons in para 6 of the order dt. 28.8.98. Surprisingly, within less than twenty days, he allowed the bail application filed by four other co accused under Section 439 CrPC by giving absolutely contradictory reasons than the reasons assigned by him in the order dated 17.9.98 passed in bail application filed under Section 438 CrPC. It is a serious matter, which must be thoroughly enquired into and investigated on the administrative side by way of holding a Departmental Enquiry against the learned Judge.
5. It is only after the learned Judge granted regular bail on 17.9.98 to four other co accused by a reasoned order by which the learned Judge has almost decided the case before the evidence was led and the trial was over which was highly improper on his part. Thereafter, the present petitioner has filed this bail petition Under Section 438 CrPC. The law on this point is very well settled. The court has to assign only brief reasons while granting or rejecting bail and elaborate discussion should have been avoided but that principle is completely ignored by the learned Judge while granting bail to co-accused on 17.9.1998. It may be stated that though the anticipatory bail petition of all the five accused including the present petitioner was rejected on 28.8.98 and the certified copy of the same was already received on 3.9.98, the present petitioner has filed this bail petition under Section 438 CrPC on 5.10.98, only after the same learned Judge allowed the regular bail to four other co-accused on 17.9.98 and on the basis of the reasons recorded by the learned Judge in para 6 of the order dt. 17.9.1998 passed in Cr. Misc. (Bail) Case No. 224/98, a submission was made that the accused, who is a Govt. Officer working in Air Force, be granted anticipatory bail.
6. Law on bail is very well settled. The court has to take the averments made in the FIR at its face value and considering the averments made in the FIR, the learned Judge himself rejected the bail petition filed by the present accused along with four other co-accused on 28.8.98 and in my opinion rightly so. How and under what circumstances, the learned Judge has passed the subsequent order dt. 17.9.98 in regular bail application filed under Section 439 CrPC, is a matter of investigation. The reasons assigned by him in para 6 of the order dated 17.9.98 have to be completely ignored because the learned Judge has travelled beyond his jurisdiction in deciding that regular bail petition.
7. Before parting, I must state that the manner in which an attempt is made to obtain anticipatory bail from this court disentitles the petitioner from any order particularly when he is charged with the offences Under Sections 498A, 320, 323, 342, 147 and 148 IPC, though he is a Govt. servant.
8. For the reasons stated above, this bail petition is required to be rejected and accordingly it is rejected. I have refrained myself from having any elaborate discussion while rejecting this bail petition.
9. The office is directed to place the matter before Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice for taking appropriate action in the matter. A copy of this order be also kept in the service book of the learned Judge.