IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.4993 of 2011 Rajo Yadav, Son of Mahadev Yadav, R/o-Vill.-Sahganj, P.S.-Mohanpur, District-Gaya. –Petitioner. VERSUS The State of Bihar -Opposite Party. ----------- 03 26.03.2011 It is indeed tragedy and a travesty of justice when the bail petition of this petitioner was rejected by Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C.-V, Gaya in Sessions Trial No.65 of 2009 pending before him. Either the learned Judge lacks judicial temperament or lacks judicial competence both of which speaks upon him. The petitioner is in custody since 25.02.2009 in relation to Barachatti (Mohanpur) P.S. Case No.53 of 2003 instituted under Section 376/34 and other sections of the Indian Penal Code. The informant, Baitli Devi aged about 65 years alleged that to take shelter from rain she entered into the house of one Gouri Devi wherein petitioner and one Janardan Yadav forcibly entered and took away the informant from that house and raped her one by one. The petitioner was ultimately apprehended, as noted above, in the year 2009 by when the trial had been split up and so far as Janardan Yadav is concerned he was duly tried by the Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C.-V, Gaya in Sessions Trial No.275 of 2004 and was acquitted by judgment and order dated 24.11.2004. The copy of the judgment has been filed which clearly shows that both the informant and Gouri Devi in whose house she has taken shelter did not support the prosecution case in any manner. There was no other prosecution witness as well to support the case of the prosecution. - 2 - While moving the bail application this was specifically brought to the notice of the learned Judge and has been noted in his order but the learned Judge noting that earlier the Court had rejected the bail application of Janardan Yadav and there were materials in the case diary to support the prosecution, he rejected the bail application without considering the effect of the judgment of acquittal in question which stared at his face. If this is not abdication of judicial functions what else is it? There is no case of the prosecution left after the said judgment yet merely because the bail applications of petitioner and co- accused were rejected earlier he is to remain in custody further. I would have ordinarily proceeded further in the matter but hoping that the Judicial Officers would correct his approach, I leave the mater at this, but, however let a copy of this order be sent to the Bihar Judicial Academy to be used as an example what should not be done. In the facts and circumstances aforesaid, let the petitioner above-named be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of the A.D.J./F.T.C.-V, Gaya in S.Tr. No.65 of 2009 arising out Barachatti (Mohanpur) P.S. Case No.53 of 2003. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)