ORDER N.L. Ganguly, J.
1. This bail cancellation application was moved by the State Government on 15-7-93 for cancelling the bail granted to the opposite party by the Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur by order dated 20-5-1993.
2. On the bail cancellation application, this court was pleaded to order for issuing bailable warrant fixing 23rd August 1993 to the opposite party for showing cause and for personal appearance before the court, why the bail granted to the appellant be not cancelled. On the date fixed, the opposite party appeared before the court along with his counsel Sri P. N. Lal, Advocate, Sri P. N. Lal requested for short time for filling the counter-affidavit. The request was accepted and time till 27-8-93 was granted on 23r9 August, 1993.
3. On 27th August 1993, when the case was called out, Sri P. N. Lal Advocate appeared and moved an application along with a counter-affidavit sworn by Sri Krishna Govind Misra, the father of the opposite-party. On 27-8-93, the opposite party did not appear before the Court. A medical certificate from a private medical practitioner Dr. S. C. Rastogi was filed showing that the opposite party was suffering from Pyrexia-cum-Chill and Rigor (Pyrexia means fever chill and Rigor). He was advised rest by the said Doctor. The Court was not inclined to accept the medical certificate as it was not by a Government Hospital Doctor. This is not uncommon to obtain certificate from Doctors about fever, etc. The court was pleased to direct that the case be put up on 30th August 1993 with a specific direction that the opposite party shall appear in person and file the counter-affidavit, if any, so advised.
4. The opposite party Anup Misra is present today i.e. on 30-8-93 along with his counsel Sri P. N. Lal and Sri S. K. Garg, Advocates. No other counter-affidavit has been filed. It was requested that some further short time be allowed for filing affidavit by the opposite party annexing certain other documents which he could not obtain on account of paucity of time.
5. Heard the learned Counsel for the State and the opposite party. I am not inclined to grant any further time for filing any further counter-affidavit. However, during the course of arguments, the learned Counsel for the opposite party pointed out paragraphs from the counter-affidavit filed by Sri Krishna Govind Misra.
6. The case against the opposite party was registered under Sections. 147, 304B, 498A, I.P.C. and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act in crime No. 34 of 1993 at P. S. Ram Chandra Mission, Distt. Shahjahanpur. In the said case crime an application for bail was moved on behalf of the opposite party which was heard and rejected by the learned Sessions Judge by a detailed five typed pages order on 19-5-93.
7. Another application for bail was moved on behalf of the opposite party before the Sessions Judge on 20-5-93 i.e. just next day of the rejection of the first bail application. The learned Sessions Judge who had already rejected the bail application on 19-5-93 observed in his order that "at this time, i.e. 2.30 p.m. the court Room is packed with Advocates and they are shouting and are very disorderly and abusing and raising slogans saying that no Advocate went to jail before this. They are in a very aggressive and threatening mood. They are almost bending upon my table from all sides. This situation has continued for about half-an-hour.
8. Now they have presented a second bail application for Sri Anup Mishra and have asked to pass orders for grant of bail to Sri Anup Misra.
9. Sri Anup Misra who is accused in crime No. 34/93, under Sections. 147, 304B and 498A, I.P.C, P. S. Ram Chandra Mission is released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for Rs. 5,000/- with two sureties each, in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Magistrate concerned.
Sd/- Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur.
20-5-93.
10. The learned State Counsel argued that the Advocates of the District Shahjahanpur, who were present in the court in large number and the court was packed, were shouting and were abusing and raising slogan in the court. They were in aggressive and threatening mood and had almost surrounded and over powered the Sessions Judge from all sides of his table. This situation was for about half an hour as stated in the order itself. The learned State counsel submits that the perusal of the order itself shows that the Sessions Judge had not passed the bail order granting bail out of his free will and judicial discretion. He was coerced and forced to pass this order under threats and pressure. Such an order is not a judicial order at all. It is also submitted that if such indiscipline and threats are permitted to be exhorted on the Presiding Officer of the Court, the law and order situation will further be worsen and there shall be no respect, decorum in the courts. He also submitted that the Judges and judicial officers if are coerced in the manner, the judiciary is likely to collapse. The arguments of the State Counsel has sufficient force
11. In a reply to this argument, the learned Counsel for the opposite party Sri P. N. Lal submitted that the second bail application which was allowed by the Sessions Judge on 20-5-93 was not moved after instructions of the opposite party. The opposite party had not given any Vakalatnama nor any memo of appearance was filed on his behalf in the said application. Thus, he submits that the opposite party cannot be penalised for the acts of unruly Advocates who have obtained the order by the Sessions Judge by exercising threats and coercion. If that is the fact, then the opposite party should not have availed the benefit of the bail order obtained by such coercion on the court. In fact, on the bail obtained on 20-5-93, the opposite party himself got realsed by filing his personal bond and sureties were filed. This argument of the opposite party has no meaning to say that he has not given instructions to file the second bail application.
12. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is abundantly clear that the order dated 20-5-93 passed by the Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur enlarging the opposite party on bail, is no order in the eye of law which was passed under threats, coercion and hurling of abuses, on the Presiding Officer. Such an order is perse void.
13. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that on the basis of a bail order, which was obtained in the circumstances narrated above, the opposite party cannot be allowed to remain outside the jail without any proper order for bail. He is moving out without any proper judicial order. Since there is an order by the Sessions Judge dated 20-5-93, I hereby set aside and quash the order dated 20-5-93 and direct that the bail order dated 20-5-93 is cancelled. The bail bonds and sureties filed on behalf of the opposite party are also cancelled.
14. The opposite party Anup Misra should have been taken into custody forthwith for production before the Court of Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur. He undertakes that he shall himself surrender and appear before the Sessions Judge on 3rd September, 1993 at 10.30 a.m., on his solemn undertaking that he shall surrender and appear before the Sessions Judge on 3rd September 1993 himself before the Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur, I direct him to surrender and appear before the Sessions Judge on 3rd September, 1993 as undertaking given by him on 30-8-93.
15. In case any application is moved on behalf of the opposite party for consideration of his second bail application or submits to consider the second bail application which was moved earlier before him on 20-5-93, the Sessions Judge shall hear and consider the second bail application after notice to the counsel for the parties very expeditiously, if possible, within a week from the date of his appearance before the Court at Shahjahanpur.
16. The application for cancellation of bail is allowed.
A certified copy of this order be supplied to the learned Counsel for the parties today.