IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.38165 of 2008 BINOD KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3/ 24/9/2008. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner renews his prayer for bail in a police case under Section- 376(2) (C) (f) of I.P.C. and 3(XI)(XII) of the S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The allegation against him is of misuse of the trust placed as a caretaker of the N.G.O. house when the victim girl of 14 years had taken shelter. The Court, normally, in a bail application refrains from making any observation of nature to affect the trial. But, the manner in which the present trial is being conducted by the court below, shocks the conscience of this Court. It considers it necessary to place the impact on record. The victim is a 14 year old minor girl. The medical report leaves this Court thoroughly dissatisfied. During investigation the victim supported the allegations. In her deposition she has gone hostile. The application for bail is pressed on that ground. The court below has acted in a mechanical manner while recording the deposition of the victim - 2 - withoug application of mind. No effort has been made by the court to confront her with her own statements to the contrary during investigation. The Presiding Judge has acted as a mute spectator. Had the Court put questions to the prime witness, her deposition alone may have assumed its own importance. All this after the observations in AIR 2006 S.C. 1367 (Zahira Habibullah Sheikh & Anr. v. State of Gujarat & Ors.)at paragraph-33 to the following effect:- “ If a criminal court is to be an effective instrument in dispensing justice, the Presiding Judge must cease to be a spectator and a mere recording machine by becoming a participant in the trial evincing intelligence, active interest and elicit all relevant materials necessary for reaching the correct conclusion, to find out the truth, and administer justice with fairness and impartiality both to the parties and to the community it serves. Courts administering criminal justice cannot turn a blind eye to vexations or oppressive conduct that has occurred in relation to proceedings, even if a fair trial is still possible, except at the risk of undermining the fair name and standing of the Judges as impartial and independent adjudicators”. This Court hopes that the court below shall see the light of the day. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, let the petitioner Binod Kumar be enlarged on bail upon furnishing the bail-bonds of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand ) along with two sureties of the like amount - 3 - each to the satisfaction of Addl. Sessions Judge, Samastipur in S.T. No.06/2008 arising out of Samastipur (Town) P.S. Case No.516/07. KC ( Navin Sinha,J )