RASHID Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C. A. Rahim, J. The instant revision has been preferred against the order of learned Ilnd Additional Sessions Judge, Budaun dated 17-8-1986 in Misc. Case No. 1069 of 1994 by that order the learned Sessions Judge rejected the prayer for bail of the petitioners.

(2.) THE learned counsel appearing for the revisionists has challegned the said order on two grounds firstly that the learned Sessions Judge and the learned Magistrate who was in charge of the case did not assign any reason while remanding the accused in jail custody. He has submitted that without assigning any reason if the petitioners were sent to jail custody will amount to an illegality for which the accused persons are entitled to bail. Secondly, he has submitted that the cases under Section 302, I. P. C. and under Section 3 Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act cannot be tried jointly since the case under later sections can be tried by a special judge, but the former one can be tried by the Additional Sessions Judge. In this connection he has also submitted that the instant case was sent to IInd Addi tional Sessions Judge without any order of commitment but under the provi sions of the SC and ST (P. A.) Act special judge has authority to try the case. But neither the Special Judge nor Additional Sessions Judge can take cogni zance under Section 190-B of the Cr. P. C.

(3.) THE learned Government Advocate in reply to the first point raised by the learned counsel for the revisionists states that the order is interlocutory since the bail application was filed and the same was heard and rejected by the learned Ilnd Additional Sessions Judge and in that connection the impugn ed order was passed. He has submitted that rejection of prayer for bail cannot be regarded as final order and according to Section 397 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure no revision with being an interlocutory order. It is true that prayers for bail when rejected no final order is passed there cannot be any revision under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.