LAWS(GJH)-1982-12-26

RAMESHBHAI AMRITLAL CHHATRAL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

Decided On December 31, 1982
RAMESHBHAI AMRITLAL CHHATRAL Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has sought to raise a question before this Court regarding which a very clear answer is to be found in the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code.

(2.) The petitioner who alongwith six other persons was cited as an accused for offences punishable under secs. 147 148 323 324 and 504 r. w. sec. 149 of the Indian Penal Code in C. R. No. 122 of 1982 of Kalol Taluka Police Station had submitted an application as per Annexure D before the learned JMFC Kalol and prayed that he should be released on bail under sec. 436 of Cr. P. Code. The learned Magi strate held that sec. 436 of Cr. P. Code would not be applicable inasmuch as the accused was not brought before the court by the police nor has he been arrested by the police. The petitioner contended before me through Mr. N. K. Barot the learned advocate that the words or appears occuring in sec. 436(1) should be construed in a wider sense and it would not be necessary that the accused should be brought before the court by the Police but he may himself voluntarily appear on coming to know that he is accused of a bailable offence and then the court should treat him as in custody and release him on bail. According to Mr. Barot as soon as the accused so surrenders himself to the learned Magistrate the learned Magistrate is legally bound to release the petitioner on bail. In short this argument is springing from an apprehension that the petitioner even though accused of a bailable offence would be arrested by the police and detained in custody for any period upto 24 hours before the Police produces him before the learned Magistrate. Mr. Barot therefore urged that the learned Magistrates refusal to release the petitioner on bail though the petitioner was prepared to offer the bail and had appeared before the Magistrate tantamounts to a refusal to exercise jurisdiction which was vested in him and this court should therefore issue directions in the nature of mandamus that the learned Magistrate who is made a party in this petition to respondent no. 2 should receive the petitioner in his custody and release him on bail.

(3.) In order to properly appreciate the contention of Mr. Barot it would be necessary to reproduce sec. 436 (1) of Cr. P. Code.