SHANKARLAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The application filed by Bagtu Devi for being impleaded is allowed.

(3.) This special leave petition is by the accused persons. They are aggrieved by the impugned direction of the High Court. It appears that habeas corpus petition being filed for production of one Bagtu Devi, the High court while disposing of the matter not only directed the Sessions Judge to proceed with the trial, but also further ordered that no application for bail shall be entertained by the Sessions Judge or any other court except the High court or the Apex Court. We are constrained to observe that the High Court has no jurisdiction to take away the jurisdiction of a Sessions Judge under the criminal Procedure Code in the matter of entertaining an application for bail and dispose of it in accordance with law. The learned counsel appearing for the impleaded respondent stated that the facts of the case are so atrocious, which persuaded the High Court to pass the impugned order. We are unable to accept this submission inasmuch as whatever may be the state of facts, the right of an accused to move an application for bail under the Procedure Code cannot be curtailed in the manner in which the High Court has done under the impugned order. While an application for bail is filed undoubtedly the sessions Judge or any other court will consider the gravamen of the offence and dispose of it in accordance with law. In this view of the matter, the impugned direction of the High Court to the Sessions Judge not to entertain an application for bail stands set aside. Be it stated, our order need not be construed to be an order on merits of the case, which will have to be gone into, in the event an application for bail is filed to the appropriate authority.