9911796707
TMI Blog1977 (10) TMI 125X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 148, Indian Penal Code. 2. The facts of the case are briefly as follows. The three appellants, Bashir, Kundan and Sadiq, along with eight others are being prosecuted for offences under Section 302 read with Section 149, Section 347 read with Section 149 and Section 148 read with Section 147, Indian Penal Code, for causing the death of one Sagru and grievous and simple injuries to three others. While eight others were released on bail, the appellants were refused bail as it was alleged that they caused injuries to Sagru. The First Information Report of the offence was lodged on December 2, 1975 and the three appellants and eight others were arrested on the same day. Though the other eight accused were released on bail, the bail app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... il. 4. An appeal against the order of the Sessions Judge cancelling the bail was dismissed by the High Court. It was contended before the High Court that when the appellants were released under the proviso to Section 167(2) of the CrPC unless there was an allegation of misconduct or misuse of the terms of the bail bond by them the bail order could not be withdrawn. It was further contended that the order of bail could be cancelled only under the provisions of Section 437(5), Criminal Procedure Code, as the order of bail passed under Section 167(2) is deemed to be a bail order passed under Chapter XXXIII, Criminal Procedure Code. Disagreeing with the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants, the High Court held as follows: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : The Magistrate to whom an accused person is forwarded under this section may, whether he has or has not jurisdiction to try the case, from time to time, authorise the detention of the accused in such custody as such Magistrate thinks fit, for a term not exceeding fifteen days in the whole; and if he has no jurisdiction to try the case or commit it for trial and considers further detention unnecessary, he may order the accused to be forwarded to a Magistrate having such jurisdiction: Provided that- (a) the Magistrate may authorise detention of the accused person, otherwise than in custody of the police, beyond the period of fifteen days if he is satisfied that adequate grounds exist for doing so, but no Magistrate shall authori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... may be released on bail, but he shall not be so released if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that he has been guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life: x x x x (2) If it appears to such officer or Court at any stage of the investigation, inquiry or trial, as the case may be, that there are not reasonable grounds for believing that the accused has committed a non-bailable offence, but that there are sufficient grounds for further inquiry into his guilt, the accused shall, pending such inquiry, be released on bail, or, at the discretion of such officer or Court, on the execution by him of a bond without sureties for his appearance as hereinafter provided. 8. Sub-section (1) of Section 437 pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsiders it necessary is preserved in cases where a person has been released on bail under Section 437(1) or (2) and these provisions are applicable to a person who has been released under Section 167(2). Under Section 437(2) when a person is released pending inquiry on the ground that there are not sufficient grounds to believe that he had committed a non-bailable offence may be committed to custody by court which released him on bail if it is satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for so doing after inquiry is completed. As the provisions of Section 437(1), (2) and (5) are applicable to a person who has been released under Section 167(2) the mere fact that subsequent to his release a challan has been filed is not sufficient to commit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 88, 1977 Cr. L.J. 104, 1977 Cr. L.J., 394 and 1977 Cr.t,.T. 486. These decisions except Ram Pal Singh and Others v. State of U.P. are not on the point and therefore need no discussion. In Ram Pal Singh and Ors. vs. State of V.P. a single Judge of the Allahabad High Court held that the bail under Section 167(2), Criminal Procedure Code has the same incidents as the bail granted under Charter XXXIII and is accordingly to remain valid till it is cancelled and the cancellation of a bail can only be on the grounds known to law and the receipt of the chargesheet in court can by itself be no ground for cancellation of the bail. The view expressed by the learned Judge is correct in law. 10. In the result we hold that the cancellation of the bail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
