CHELLAPPAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are accused in Crime No. 16/1987 of Aranmula Police Station, registered under S.143, 147, 148, 149, 332, 225, 307 and 427 IPC. and under S.3(2)(c) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act of 1984. The Judicial Magistrate of the II Class, Pathanamthitta in Crl. M. P. No. 402 of 1987 granted bail to the petitioners subject to the condition, that the accused should appear before the Circle Inspector of Police on every Sunday till the investigation is completed.

(2.) The State filed Crl. M. P. 32/1987 before the Court of Sessions, praying to cancel the bail granted by the learned Magistrate and by order dated 13-2-1987, the learned Sessions Judge allowed the application and cancelled the hail granted to the petitioners, Aggrieved by the said order, the accused petitioners have filed this Crl. M.C.

(3.) In passing the order the learned Sessions Judge held that the Magistrate has overstepped his jurisdiction and has violated the mandatory provisions contained in S.437(1) of the Cr P. C. The view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is wrong in the light of the decision of this Court in Satyan v. State of Kerala ( 1981 KLT 606 ) and also an unreported decision in Crl. MC. No. 442 of 1984. In both these decisions, it was held that the Magistrate has jurisdiction to grant bail if the offeree is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life in the alternative. In Crl. M. C. No. 442 of 1984 the offence against the accused was one under S.436 IPC which was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. Therefore the view taken by the learned Magistrate that he has powers to grant bail in the instant case is correct.