9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether a Court of a Magistrate can grant bail to an accused person when he is not in custody of that Court. Analysis: The petitioner, lodged in District Jail, Lucknow, is an accused in two cases. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faizabad, issued a production warrant for the petitioner's appearance in Case Crime No. 185/1996. The petitioner's bail application was rejected by the C.J.M., Faizabad, citing lack of custody. The petitioner approached the Supreme Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C., arguing against the need for custody for bail consideration. The petitioner contended that the production warrant issued by Faizabad Court should be deemed as custody. However, precedents like Mohd. Daud v. Superintendent of District Jail and Devi Deen v. State of U.P. established that a production warrant does not imply custody. The Court examined Section 437, Cr.P.C., which allows bail when the accused is in custody of the Court where the bail application is made. Section 439, Cr.P.C., empowers higher courts to grant bail, but custody remains a prerequisite. Referring to the case of Niranjan Singh v. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote, the Court emphasized that custody means physical control or presence before the Court. The judgment in Ranjcet Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. reiterated that only the Court with custody can grant bail. The Court dismissed reliance on previous cases like Sharam Pal Yadav v. State of U.P., Mukhtar Ansari v. State of U.P., and Krishna Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P., as they did not consider the custody requirement under Sections 437 and 439, Cr.P.C. The Court highlighted that the accused must be in the custody of the Court considering the bail application. Mere issuance of a production warrant does not establish custody unless the accused is physically produced before that Court. Therefore, the petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. was dismissed as lacking merit.
|
