Gopal Krishna Sharma, J.
1. This bail application has been presented under Section 438, Cr.PC.
2. On 9th July, J986, Mr. S.N. Kumawat, Public Prosecutor appeared in the Court on behalf of the State Government. Hi was directed on that date by Justice Dave to call the case-diary in this case. Thereafter, the case was listed today. When today Mr. Kumawat, Public Prosecutor was asked to submit the case-diary, he replied that he has not received the same.
3. This case was called at 11 a.m. When the case-diary was not produced by Mr. Kumawat Public Prosecutor, Mr. Shivraj Behari Mathur, Government Advocate was called. He was also apprised of the position as to how the orders of this Court are disobeyed and flouted by the Public Prosecutors. 1 also directed him to call the Advocate General, if he was available. Mr. Mathur desired that 10 minutes time be given to him, so that, he might call the Advocate General, I then kept the file and asked Mr. Mathur why 10 minutes, but, time was given to him upto 4 p.m. The whole idea was to call the Advocate General and bring it to his notice as to what is going on in the Office of Government Advocates and further as to what extent the orders of this Court are flouted.
4. This is not one instance, but, I am in knowledge of so many cases in which (he Public Prosecutors were asked to produce the case diaries, but, in spite of granting so many adjournments, the case-diaries were never put up before the Court. This indicates that the Public Prosecutors who appear on behalf of the State Government, do not want that the Court should do justice here. Inspite of granting time on so many occasions, they used to hold the case-diaries with them and do not permit the Court to see it. It means that their intention is that the Court should not do and impart justice.
5. In this case also, on 9th July 1986, Mr. Kumawat was directed to produce the case-diary. The case then came up before the Court on 18th July, 1986. On that date, none appeared on behalf of the State Government. This shows highest disregards for the Court by the Government Advocates. Mr. Mathur argued that the Government Advocates have always highest regards for the Court. Really, this is the way of showing highest regards to the Court. Nobody appeared on behalf of the State Government on 18th July, 1986, when the case was called. The result was that on 18th July, 1986, the case was again fixed for 21st July, 1;986. There after, today, i.e. 23rd July, 1986, this case has been taken up, and again the case diary has not been produced. This is the way of working of the Government Advocate Office, where the Public Prosecutors always try to avoid to produce the case diaries in the Court.
6. Mr. Mathur also argued that their Office should not be misunderstood by the Court, and that they are very sincere to the Court. There is no question of misunderstanding. The Government Advocates are sincere but to the Government, their employer. It may be expected that they should be sincere in their work also. Mr. Mathur further added that the Government Advocates always extend full cooperation to the Court. It is the instance of showing co-operation, by not producing the case diary even after specific direction of this Court In the past, on the number of times, I have noticed this type of patent behaviour of the Public Prosecutors before the Court; and they never produce the case diaries in time before the Court. This is nothing but clear disobedience of the orders of this Court, by the Public Prosecutors, I would not like to encourage this type of disobedience.
7. A person who has either been detained in jail or going to be detained, but, in both the circumstances, the question is of liberty of a citizen. If some power is given to the police to investigate a case and arrest a person without a warrant, then, they must do it sincerely and honestly. But, a person who has been arrested or is going to be arrested, has a right to apply for bail to a competent court of law, and the court is also expected of doing justice after hearing the accused as well as the State Government, because, the person who applies for bail, comes to the court with hope and expectation that his bail-application would be heard and his fate would be decided. But, on the other hand, if tactics are played by the State Government by not producing the case diary, what justice can be imparted to the accused person Both the parties are equal for the Court. Therefore, I do not appreciate the way of working of the Government Advocate Office. I also know that the matter would not end here, because, this is a routine-practice of the Public Prosecutor not to produce case diaries before the Court, even after directions of this Court.
8. I, therefore, feel that Mr. S.N. Kumawat, Public Prosecutor should be given a notice for disobeying the order of this Court dated 9th July, 1986.
9. The Office is directed to issue a notice of disobedience to Mr. S.N. Kumawat, Public Prosecutor.
10. Under the circumstances when there is nothing before this Court to oppose the bail application on behalf of the State Government, I am inclined to accept the same, agreeing with the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner.
11. The application for anticipatory bail is, therefore, accepted and the SHO/Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer, P.S. Jhalra Patan is directed that in the event of arrest of petitioner Gopal Krishna, in FIR 67/86, he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum Rs. 5,000/-together with one surety in like amount, to his satisfaction, on the following conditions:
(1) that he shall make himself available for interrogation by a Police Officer as and when required ;
(2) that he 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; and
(3) that he shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.