RANVEER SINGH Vs. DESH RAJ SINGH CHAUHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicants figure as accused persons in Case Crime No. 256 of 1982, under Sections 302 and 307, IPC of district Mainpuri, THEy, however, chose to surrender before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etah, Instead of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mainpuri, on 5th November, 1982, THEy were remanded to jail custody and an application for bail was moved before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etah, who did not entertain it. THE bail application then moved in the sessions court, Etah, was transferred to II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Etah, namely, Sri M. P. Singh. THE II Additional District and Sessions Judge; Etah, vide its order dated 17-11-1982 granted bail to the applicants. It would appear that an application was also moved before the Additional Munsif Magistrate, Mainpuri, for ball. He rejected that application, observing that neither the applicants have put in appearance before him, nor are they in the custody of the court, hence the application is rejected. Subsequently, the complainant of the case moved an application before the Sessions Judge, Mainpuri, for cancellation of the bail granted by Etah court, which had (") application issued notice to the present applicants and sent for reports from the police. It also directed that all the relevant papers may be obtained from the Etah court. THE applicants maintained that the entire proceedings on the aforesaid application, namely, Criminal Misc. Application No. 1028 of 1982, pending before the court of Sessions Judge, Mainpuri, is without jurisdiction and has prayed that the proceedings may be quashed. This prayer has been opposed by the opposite party by putting appearance.

(2.) IT has been maintained in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party no. 1 that the Additional Munsif Magistrate, Mainpuri, rightly rejected the application of the applicants as he had no papers regarding the case. IT was, further maintained that the case relates to district Maippuri, consequently, Etah court had no jurisdiction to entertain any bail application. IT was, further, maintained that this was also brought to the notice of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Etah, that he has no jurisdiction In the matter, but he still granted ball. IT was, further, maintained that the notices of the application for cancellation of bail were served upon the applicants and they appeared before the court of Sessions Judge, Mainpuri, where the application was heard and was pending orders and the accused persons have purposely avoided the courts at Mainpuri.

(3.) I proceed to consider whether the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Etab, had the jurisdiction to grant bail to the applicants. The learned Counsel for the applicants has referred certain sections of the CrPC in that connection, Section 2 (j), CrPC (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') defines 'local jurisdiction' in relation to a court or Magistrate, means the local area within which the Court or Magistrate may exercise all or any of its or his powers under the Code. Section 6 lays down the classes of criminal courts, as Court of Sessions, Judicial Magistrate of the First Class or the Metropolitan Magistrate, Judicial Magistrate of Second Class and Executive Magistrates. Section 7 provides that every State shall be a sessions division or shall consists of sessions divisions and every sessions division shall, for the purposes of this Code, be a district or consist of districts. In Uttar Pradesh we have sessions divisions and in every district there is a sessions division. In particular Etah and Mainpuri are distinct and separate sessions divisions created by the State Government under Section 7 (2) of the Code. Section 8 CrPC relates to Metropolitan areas, with which we are not concerned. Section 9 (1) lays down that the State Government shall establish a Court of Sessions for every sessions division. Sub-clause (2) provides for appointment of a Judge by the High Court for every Court of Session and sub-section (3) provides for appointments of Additional Sessions Judges and Assistant Sessions Judges in a court of Session. Sub-clause (6) of Section 9 lays down that the court of Session shall hold its sitting at such place or places as the High Court may, by notification, specify. Section 14 provides for local jurisdiction of Judicial Magistrates. The aforesaid provisions, thus, deal with the constitution of different classes of courts and sessions divisions. Sections 80 and 81 of the Code deal with the procedure of arrest of person against whom warrant is issued and procedure to be followed by the Magistrate before whom such person arrested is brought. Both these sections deal with the cases of arrested persons and execution of warrant of arrest and arrest in consequence thereof. The case where voluntary surrender is made differs from the case where arrest is made In execution of a warrant. Section 80 deals with the warrant of arrest executed outside the district in which it was issued. It provides that unless the court issuing warrant is within thirty kilometers of the place of arrest or is nearer than the Executive Magistrate or District Superintendent of Police or Commissioner of police, within whose local limits and jurisdiction the arrest was made, the arrested person will be taken before such Magistrate or District Superintendent or Commissioner. Section 81 (1) provides that the Executive Magistrate or District Superintendent of Police or Commissioner of Police shall, if the person arrested appears to be the person intended by the Court which issued the warrant, direct his removal in custody to such Court. The first proviso provides for bail in bailable cases. The second proviso provides that if offence is not bailable, it shall be lawful for the Chief Judicial Magistrate or the Sessions Judge of the district in which the arrest is made subject to the provisions of section 437 CrPC, to grant bail. The reason why such provisions have been made is obvious. In case where arrest is made in execution of a warrant, the arrested person has to be enabled to seek bail from the district where he is arrested and lodged. Hence such provisions have been made. But this would not mean that a person is at liberty to choose the court and district as to surrender there on his own volition and seek bail from there instead of from the court within whose jurisdiction the offence was committed.