SOBARAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only question involved in this revision is whether the order of the Magistrate cancelling the bail granted to the applicants was legally justified.

(2.) THE applicants, along with Birbal, were charged with offences punishable under Section 302/394, I.P.C. As the charge-sheet against them had not been submitted within 60 days of their arrest, they applied to the learned Magistrate for enlarging them on bail. The learned Magistrate, in exercise of his powers under Section 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code, directed the applicants to be en larged on bail. Thereafter the committal proceedings started. The learned Magistrate by his order dated November 22, 1974 directed that the accused persons be committed to the court of Sessions. By the same order, he directed that the bail granted to Sobaran Singh and Devendra Singh under Section 167. Cr.P.C. be cancelled.

(3.) THE bail granted by the Magistrate under Section 167, Cr.P.C. could not enure during the trial of the accused persons in the court of Sessions. Learned counsel for the applicants placed reliance on the concluding portions of sub-section 2(a) of Section 167, Cr.P.C. which lays down that every person released on bail under this sec tion shall be deemed to be so released under the provisions of Chap ter XXXIII for the purposes of that Chapter. It was urged that once a person was directed to be released on bail under Section 167, Cr.P. C., the benefit of that order enured till the conclusion of the trial of the accused. I am not inclined to agree with this submission. The power to enlarge an accused on bail is contained under Chapter XXXIII of the Code. Section 167, Cr.P.C., only provides that once a person is released on bail on the ground that the charge-sheet has not been submitted within 60 days of the accused being taken into custody, the provisions relating to grant of bail would be the same as contained in Chapter XXXIII of the Code. It cannot be inter preted to mean that the order is so sacrosanct that it cannot be can celled or that it would be effective during the trial before the court of Sessions.