9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of Chief Judicial Magistrate or Court of Sessions to grant bail under Section 81 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) to a person arrested without a warrant. 2. Interpretation of Sections 78 and 81 of the Cr.P.C. concerning the grant of bail. 3. Applicability of the second proviso to Section 81 Cr.P.C. in cases of non-warrant arrests. Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of Chief Judicial Magistrate or Court of Sessions to Grant Bail under Section 81 Cr.P.C.: The primary issue is whether the second proviso to Section 81 Cr.P.C. allows the Chief Judicial Magistrate or the Court of Sessions to grant bail to a person arrested without a warrant. The petitioner was arrested without a warrant by Delhi Police in Moradabad and produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, who granted bail under Section 81 Cr.P.C. The State contended that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad, lacked jurisdiction to grant bail as the arrest was made without a warrant and the case was instituted in Delhi. 2. Interpretation of Sections 78 and 81 Cr.P.C.: The judgment delves into the interpretation of Sections 78 and 81 Cr.P.C. Section 78 deals with the execution of warrants outside the local jurisdiction of the issuing court, requiring the forwarding of the warrant along with the substance of the information to the court where the arrest is made. Section 81 outlines the procedure for a Magistrate before whom the arrested person is brought, including the provision for granting bail if the offence is bailable. The court highlighted that the second proviso to Section 81 does not confer any power to release a person on bail unless the arrest was made in execution of a warrant issued under Section 78. The intention of the legislature, as per the court, is clear from the context and position of Section 81 within Chapter VI of the Cr.P.C., which pertains to arrests made with warrants. 3. Applicability of the Second Proviso to Section 81 Cr.P.C.: The court examined the applicability of the second proviso to Section 81 Cr.P.C., concluding that it is limited to cases where the arrest is made in execution of a warrant issued under Section 78. The court emphasized that the power to grant bail under this proviso is contingent upon the forwarding of relevant documents and information as mandated by Section 78(2). The court disagreed with the Calcutta High Court's interpretation in Govind Prasad Vs. State of West Bengal, which suggested a broader application of Section 81 to include arrests without warrants. The judgment clarified that the jurisdiction for granting bail lies with the court having jurisdiction over the area where the offence was committed, not where the arrest was made. The court underscored that criminal jurisdiction is governed by the situs of the offence, and the presence of the accused in another jurisdiction does not confer bail-granting powers to courts outside the area of the offence. This principle ensures that the jurisdiction for trial and inquiry remains with the court where the offence occurred. Conclusion: The court concluded that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad, did not have the jurisdiction to grant bail under Section 81 Cr.P.C. as the arrest was not made in execution of a warrant under Section 78. The petitioner's application for bail was dismissed, reinforcing the principle that jurisdiction for granting bail is confined to the court having jurisdiction over the area of the commission of the offence.
|
