BIPAT RAM AND ANOTHER Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision application against an order of the Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur, cancelling the bail of the applicants. It is said that he had no jurisdiction to do so.

(2.) IT appears that the learned Sessions Judge granted bail to the applicants in a case which was proceeding in his court against them. 17-8-1953, was fixed for the hearing of the case. They absented themselves and submitted medical certificates which were accepted and 30-9-1953, was fixed for the hearing of the case. But on 30-9-1953, they were again absent, and only a telegram was received by the court from one of them indicating that the other was ill. At the request of the District Government Counsel, the learned Sessions Judge cancelled the bail. I think he acted quite correctly. If an accused who has been granted bail misuses his liberty and absents himself without proper cause in a case proceeding before a court, that court has inherent jurisdiction to cancel the bail previously granted by it. A court must have full power to enforce its orders, maintain its authority and see that the progress of the case is not hampered by anything.

(3.) IN the present case, however, proceedings were going on before the Sessions Judge himself and in my view he had inherent jurisdiction to cancel the bail which he had granted to the accused persons when he found that they were absenting themselves without reasonable cause and delaying the progress of the case.