G.M. Lodha, J.
1. This is an unusual case, where criminal complaint filed before Chief Judicial Magistrate on 3-9-1979 and on which an order was passed for investigation reached the S.H.O. concerned on 3-1-1981. The offence alleged is said to be about the dispute in relation to truck which was allegedly in partnership of the complaint to start with and for it a civil litigation is alleged to b'; pending between the parties. The accused in his application has alleged that this long time of one and half year was taken by the complainant for backmailing of the accused by keeping the complaint pending as a hanging sword.
2. The learned Public Prosecutor has not been able to give any reply to this unusual extra ordinary delay. According to him all that he can say is that the complaint was received on 3-1-1981 and the date of filing is not in dispute.
3. The case as per the first information report relates to some transaction which took place for the first time in 1975 regarding the partnership about a truck and later on allegation of changing body of the truck and the registration of name for which no approximate months or years have been mentioned.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner was asked to mention why the bail application has not been moved first before the Sessions Judge. He pointed out the following allegations against the Sessions Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate which are contained in paragraph No. 5:
That the Hon'ble Court is competent and has jurisdiction to hear this application directly without approaching the learned Sessions Judge for the reasons that a written complaint was given against the learned Sessions Judge, Tonk by the father of the accused petitioner to the Acting Judge who visited the Tonk.
Another complaint has also been sent by the father of the accused petitioner to the Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court against the Sessions Judge, Tonk which has been received by the Private Secretary to the Chief Justice on 2-3-1981. Further a transfer application was moved by Shri Prahladji, father of the petitioner to this Court under Section 407 Cr.P.C. to tranfer his case for the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate to any another court. In the transfer petition, the main allegation was that Shri Prahlad was a dealer of Rajdoot Motor Cycle and runs his business in the name and style of Arvind Motor Co. Tonk. Prior to the incident which formed the subject matter of the case, the Chief Judicial Magistrate had come to his shop and asked him as to whether he would be able supply him a motor cycle which he needed for the learned Sessions Judge and that he agreed to supply the same at the cost price. Thereafter, the learned Sessions Judge as well as the Chief Judicial Magistrate came to his shop and paid Rs. 2,000/- only as the first instalment and rest of amount on monthly instalment of Rs. 200/- but he showed his inability on the aforesaid terms and conditions and therefore, the Chief Judicial Magistrate in a criminal case also he submitted a challan against the accused petitioner and his father Under Section 147, 323, 324 IPC but the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance Under Section 307 IPC and issued non-bailable warrants against the father of the accused petitioner. The learn-Sessions Judge rejected the Anticipatory bail, moved on behalf of his father. Therefore, for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner is apprehended that he will not get. any justice from the learned Sessions Judge, Tonk and more so he would gel adverse orders from the learned Sessions Judge, if he will move an application before him. Therefore, for the above reasons, the accused petitioner has moved the bail directly to this Hon'ble Court.
5. The above allegations are very serious in nature against the two judicial officers, but it would not be fair to give any comments adverse against them, as they had no chance to rebut them, and they are not parties.
6. However, because the Public Prosecutor has not contested this part of the allegation, I am inclined to entertain the bail application directly. It would be premature to express any opinion about the merits of the case. All that can be said is that in case like this where power under section 438 should be exercised. The legislature's intention to protect the citizens from unscrupulous persons who use weapon of arrest either for getting a civil dispute settled or for black-mailing the accused is very well justified by the present type of cases, where even after filing of the complaint in September, 1979 for some reason or the other it was manoeuvred that it should remain pending for one and half year even before it is registered before the SHO. I am convinced that this is an appropriate case where ends of justice would be met by granting application for bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. It is therefore, ordered that the petitioner Ram Lakhan Tikkiwal should be released en bail in the event of arrest provided he furnishes a personal bond in sum of Rs. 5,000/- and two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of concerned Station House Officer, subject to the following conditions that:
(1) The petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; and
(2) The petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police Officer.
In the event of breach of the conditions the bail order shall stand automatically cancelled.
7. It is further ordered that the Magistrate concerned should hold an enquiry about the one and half year delay alleged to have caused from the date of order for sending the case to SHO till the date when the SHO registered the case and take appropriate action if necessary against the person found responsible for this un-excusable action. The order for sending the complaint to the SHO was passed on 3-9-79. A direction for the same contained after that by same Magistrate is un-dated. All this must be enquired into, whether the complaint which bears the D. No. 219/10-9-1979 219/10-9-1979 was handed over to the complainant or it was sent to the SHO by process-server or peon of the Court. Appropriate action should be taken on the conclusion of the enquiry and this Court should be intimated of the result within a period of 2 months from today. A copy of this order should also be sent to the Sessions Judge concerned.