PAULOSE Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have been charged with offences punishable under S.447, 324, 427 and 323 IPC. These are bailable offences. The accused were granted bail by the learned Magistrate by his order dated 13 12 1977. Subsequently on a report made by the police to the court the learned Magistrate passed an order dated 7-2-1978 directing the accused to appear before the police. It is this direction which is now challenged.

(2.) Counsel submits that in respect of a bailable offence the Magistrate has no power to impose any such condition or to issue any such direction. All that the Magistrate is competent to insist upon is a bond for appearance of the accused in court.

(3.) That the Magistrate is not competent in respect of bailable offences to impose a condition that the accused should appear before the police does not seem to admit of any doubt in the light of the authorities. The decisions in Jayantilal Purshottamdas v. State of Gujarat, 1966 Cri. L. J. 209. In re. Kota Appalakonda ( AIR 1942 Mad. 740 ), In re. The District Magistrate of Vizagapatam ( AIR 1949 Mad. 77 ), In re. Saradamma (AIR 1965 A. P. 444) and Radha v. State ( 1955 (2) MLJ 471 ) are directly in point. In the light of these authorities it has to be held that the Magistrate has, in respect of bailable offences such as in the present case, no power to direct the accused to appear before the police. I do so. The present petition is accordingly allowed.