Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1996 (8) TMI 532

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... arrant has been sent to the C.J.M., Lucknow also. However, in pursuance of this production warrant, the petitioner has not been produced before Faizabad Court and he continues to be lodged in District Jail, Lucknow. 2. The petitioner applied before C.J.M. Faizabad for bail in Case Crime No. 185 of 1996 referred to above. Bail application of the petitioner has been rejected by C.J.M., Faizabad by his impugned order dated 25-6-96 in which it has been mentioned that since the petitioner is not in custody of the Court, his bail application cannot be considered. Aggrieved by it, the petitioner approached this Court Under Section 482, Cr.P.C. 3. In the petition it has been mentioned that the Police of Faizabad and Ambedkar Nagar districts i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n warrant u/S. 267, Cr. P.C. does not partake the character of detention order of the Court seeking production for answering a charge or for the purpose of any proceedings pending before it. In view of this, issuance of production warrant by Faizabad Court, cannot be considered to deem that the petitioner is in custody of that Court. 7. The bail in this case was sought by the petitioner under S. 437, Cr. P.C. the relevant portion of which runs as follows : 437. When bail may be taken in case of non-bailable offence (1) When any person accused of, or suspected of, the commission of any non-bailable offence is arrested or detained without warrant by an officer in charge of a police station or appears or is brought before a Court other .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... it is not permissible for a Court interpreting statute to add any word to it. There can be no dispute to this principle of interpretation of statute but it has to be borne in mind that Section 439, Cr. P.C. is in a way of an extension of Section 437, inasmuch as Section 437 empowers a Magistrate to grant bail whereas Section 439 Cr. P.C. empowers a superior Court, namely, Court of Session and High Court to grant bail. In view of this, if under Section 437, Cr. P.C. custody of the accused is required to be of that Court which has to consider the bail application, it follows that the same principle of interpretation shall govern Section 439, Cr. P.C. also. Apart from this, it has to be borne in mind that only that Court can release a person o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... h v. State of U.P. 1996 JIC 195 (Alld). (Lucknow Bench) has taken the view that only that Court is competent to grant bail in whose custody the accused is and mere issuance of production warrant does not mean that the accused is in the custody of that Court which issued the production warrant. On behalf of the petitioner, reliance was placed on a decision of this Court given in the case of Sharam Pal Yadav v. State of U.P. 1992 All Cri C 211. In that case the accused was in custody in another district but the Court of another district was directed to consider the bail application of the accused. This was done on the basis of the concession granted by Addl. Govt. Advocate to the effect that in case a certificate is produced from the Superint .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e Court of Session and thereafter his bail application was considered. In view of this, it is clear that the case of Niranjan Singh is not an authority for the proposition that an accused can be enlarged on bail by a Court in whose custody he is not at that time. On the other hand, as mentioned above, case of Niranjan Singh is an authority for the proposition that only that Court. can consider bail application in whose custody the accused is for the time being. 15. In view of the above discussion, it is held that only that court can consider and dispose of the bail application either u/S. 437 or u/S. 439, Cr. P.C. in whose custody the accused is for the time being and mere issuance of production warrant u/S. 267, Cr. P.C. is not sufficie .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates