Bashir Ahmad Kirmani, J.
1. This petition impugns an order dated January 20, 2007 of learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar whereunder he admitted respondent to anticipatory bail and the order dated January 29, 2007 of Judicial Magistrate (Judge Small Causes Court), Srinagar whereunder regular bail was granted to the accused. Grounds pleaded are that both the orders were passed in violation of territorial jurisdiction of both the courts below and without observance of due procedure. During course of submissions, while petitioner's counsel has re-iterated the grounds urged in memo of petition, learned Counsel for respondent-State has almost conceded the petition while none has appeared to argue for the private respondents.
2. I have heard learned Counsel and considered the matter. Perusal of the records of learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar reveals that the application for bail in anticipation of arrest was moved on behalf of the accused who were involved in an offence under Section 498-A R. P. C. before him on January 20, 2007 while he was working as vacation Judge. Bail appears to have been granted on the same day without inviting objections from prosecution or the complainant which on the face of it renders the order arbitrary particularly because the contents of order do not reveal anything to suggest as to what persuaded the concerned Judge to rush through the proceedings without allowing an opportunity to the prosecution or the complainant to contest the matter. As a matter of fact, the conduct of learned Judge in passing the bail order in favour of the accused involved in an anti-social offence exposes him to accounting.
3. Almost similar is the case with regular bail order passed by Judicial Magistrate, (Judge Small Causes Court), Srinagar again without securing objections of prosecution or the complainant. It appears that the learned Magistrate while considering bail for respondent-accused was influenced by the fact of their being already on bail in anticipation of arrest due to which he conducted the proceedings casually and perhaps in total disregard of the procedural requirements.
4. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed and both the orders impugned herein are quashed with a direction to respondent-accused to surrender before the trial court with liberty to pray there for fresh bail. Meanwhile, a copy of this order be communicated to Registrar General of the Court for ascertaining from concerned Officers, the circumstances which persuaded them to pass the orders as aforesaid. That done the same be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for such action as may be warranted. Disposed of.