' SYED ZAKIR HUSSAIN, J.---This bail application pertains to an incident of firearm injuries caused by nominated persons together with one unidentified person as reported against. The present applicant is arrested in the matter as involved being the said unidentified culprit. The F.I.R. Does not show the features of unidentified culprit. Such arrested person is not put to ide.Ntification test. The statements of the witnesses 'recorded after about ten days of his arrest, disclosing that through some source (not known to record) they had come to know that the said arrested person was the said unknown culprit, being afterthought, make out a case of further enquiry. The charge sheet has already been submitted in the matter. The bail application moved earlier in the Court A of first instance, is rejected by the order dated 17-6-2010, in which, it is observed that the investigating officer neglected to have not put the arrested person to identification test through the complainant and other witnesses yet the bail application was rejected on the grounds that the witnesses disclosed the name of the said arrested person (as the said unidentified culprit of the incident) and that he, admitted his guilt before the police at the time of his arrest. The learned Judge as per the learned counsel, has already prejudged the matter and come to two inter-conflicting observations that the identification parade was a must and failure to get it carried out, was negligence of the investigation officer; that the witnesses disclosed the name of the said arrested person as accused (after lapse of ten days of the incident), besides the said arrested person admitted his guilt at the time of his arrest, before the police, yet he refused bail to the applicant.
The learned counsel states that all these aspects make the case as one of further enquiry and the learned Judge failed to exercise the discretion vested in his authority. The learned State counsel has no objection over grant of bail in the circumstances. The application is allowed. The bail is granted to the applicant in the sum of Rs,100,000 (One hundred thousands only) with P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
2. It is in public interest at large that the learned Judge be directed to take the notice of the facts that he has in his order observed about the negligence of the investigation officer on the basis of the yardstick of law but the same negligence appears to have been shown on his part attracting the same norms of law, when he found that the identification parade, was a must in the case and the investigating officer has neglected to have failed to carry out the same, with the result that there appears lapses and that lacks important material at least to the extent of the identity of the present applicant as culprit, and when simultaneously he came to know that the accused pleaded his guilt before the police, which as per the practice awl, law, is no lawful admission of the crime; to the knowledge of the learned Judge, as also, the delay in examination of the P.Ws. Who disclosed the name of the applicant as culprit shown as unidentified one in the F.I.R. Or in the first instance, which being in conflict therewith, of itself, is a matter of further probe, yet he has given no consideration thereto, and thereby took no notice that all these facts make out a case of bail. It is a matter of great concern that the Courts of first instance are not granting bail on the score of further enquiry, rather generally seems to have adopted a constant attitude of refusal thereof, in total disregard of the fact that the matter appears to be so bailable according to the norms of law practice and principles settled in that regard by the superior Courts, which is not only, a mere failure of exercise of discretion on their part, which too, as a matter of rule cannot be exercised arbitrarily, particularly in derogation, deviation or violation of the legal .Precedents of binding nature, but also, an arbitrary act of incompetence. This conduct on the one hand does over burden the superior Courts with such like matters (which could conveniently be disposed of at their hands) at the first instance, and goes adverse to the commitment of the society, guaranteed under the Constitution towards inexpensive and expeditious justice on the other. A copy of this order be sent to the Registrar for circulation.