IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.38512 of 2008 MD. SHAHABUDDIN Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 18.12.2008 Heard Sri K.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.B. Rai Raman, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The case has been registered under Sections 341, 504, 353/34 of the IPC, out of which the offence under Section 353 IPC has been made non-bailable recently by an amendment. The petitioner is a M.P., who is undergoing trial before a Special Court created for trying cases against him only in respect of various offences reported against him in the district of Siwan. As may appear from the rejection order, the petitioner has been found guilty also of committing offences under Sections 364 & 307 of the Penal Code and he besides being a under trial prisoner, appears a convict also who is serving out his sentences, which sentences may be under appeal before any court. The allegation under the above background is that the petitioner presented a document bearing his signature for attestation of his signature. The document was received by - 2 - the informant through a co-prisoner and a message, as per the allegation, was sent to the petitioner that the attestation shall be done and the document shall be transmitted to the addressee by registered post. It is alleged that the petitioner arrived in the official chamber of the informant with several prisoners shouted at the informant, abused him and in a fit of rage commanded him to sign, else he would be allowed to go out of his chambers. The informant explained his position by reiterating the message he had transmitted to the petitioner through a co-prisoner. The contention is that not getting his signature attested a petition was filed before a court also complaining to it about the acts of the informant and also with a prayer to seek a direction for the signature being attested. The contention further is through a supplementary affidavit that in fact the informant had attested the signature of the petitioner and handed back the document to the petitioner and as such the allegation that the informant would transmit the document along with accompanying cheque to the addressee appears a concoction. - 3 - The learned Additional Sessions Judge, who dismissed the prayer for bail of the petitioner has made a very valuable observation in his order that the purpose of criminal trial is also, amongst others, of reforming an accused and if an accused was behaving in a manner in spite of being tried then it could be a serious set back to the judicial system. This court wants to add up that in spite of being convicted, if the prisoner or a man like the petitioner could be behaving in the manner with an official, who could be handling the affairs of the jail then the very prisoner could be said having no respect for the system, the existence of courts and the existence of institutions, which assist the judiciary in doing justice. The petitioner claims himself to be a member of Parliament, elected by people of a particular constituency. One could expect a person like the petitioner that he could behave like a gentleman, especially when he was seeking an assistance from a person, who is an employee of the State. A member of Parliament is not the State. He could only be an unit of Parliament, he could not be the Parliament. If this could be behaviour of a man on account of being a Member of Parliament, then this court - 4 - has difficulty in indulging itself in prayer of the present nature. The petition is dismissed. DKS/ (Dharnidhar Jha, J.)