INDRA MOHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is direct against the order dated 15.11.1988 passed bytheSessions Judge Farrukhabad in Criminal Revision No. 58 of 1988 allowing the revision and canceling the Bail of the applicants India Mohan Singh and Subedar Singh granted by lInd Asstt. Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad in case Crime No. 161 of 1987 under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 307 I.P.C. relating to police station Kamal Ganj. District Farrukhabad.

(2.) The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that applicants Indra Mohan Singh and Subedar Singh were granted bail by the lind Asstt. Session Judge Farrukhabad on 30.5.88, and 29-5-1988 respectively Division Bench of this court in a case Bhola & others Versus State reported in 1979 A.C.C. 155 has held that the order granting, refusing or canceling bail was an interlocutory order, hence the order passed by the learned Asstt. Sessions Judge was not revisable. The learned Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain revision against the interlocutory order granting bail to the applicants and as such the order passed by him allowing the revision was patently illegal and without jurisdiction. The court below erroneously held that the applicants had not been committed to the court of Sessions and consequently the learned Asstt. Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to take the applicants into custody and release them on bail. In support of this revision he contended that the case of other co-accused had already been committed to the court of sessions and the trial was pending before the lInd Asstt. Session Judge, Farrukhahad who had taken cognizance of the offence and, therefore, he was fully justified in permitting the applicants to surrender hear their bail application and release them on bail. On the contrary, the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party contended that the revision is not maintainable in this Court against the order granting, canceling or refusing bail.

(3.) I have consider the above legal submissions made on behalf of both the parties. It is not disputed that the other co-accused had already been committed to the court of sessions and the trial was pending before the lInd Asstt. Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad, and whore the applicants surrendered and moved bail application and that after considering the material available on record the learned Asstt. Sessions Judge and granted bail to them. Now the only thing to be considered in this revision is whether the applicants were first required to surrender before the C.J.M. or the court concerned and then apply for bail to the Sessions Judge. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the applicants relied upon the following observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Kishun Singh and others v. State of Bihar.