MOHD HAROON Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant was remanded to judicial custody on 21.10.1984 by the Magistrate. On the same day after having given remand, the Magistrate passed two orders. The order Annexure II is on the application of the applicant of that date to the elect that the application be kept on record and though the case is not fit for remand, the remand is still being given before hearing all papers; hence bail granted. There is another order of that date giving reasons and providing points for enlarging the applicant on bail. It remains a mystery what occasioned the two orders of bail. However, dealing with further facts I may mention that a revision was preferred by the complainant and revisional court, namely the District arid Sessions Judge, cancelled the bail of the applicant holding that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to grant a bail for an offence under section 307 I.P.C., and the order is without jurisdiction, also directing the accused person to surrender. The applicant has now preferred this petition praying that the order of the revisional court is bad and it may be quashed.

(2.) It is urged that there were no materials before the Magistrate so he was, well entitled to grant bail. It is also urged once the Magistrate granted bails therevlsional court could not interfere in this matter. It is further submitted that the consideration for cancelling bait is very different with the consideration for granting bail and once bail was granted the revisional court could not and should not cancel the bail.

(3.) I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced. Once question of jurisdiction is involved and there is a want of jurisdiction of the court granting bail, such order would be perse bad and those considerations, which arise for cancellation of bail granted by a competent court of Jurisdiction, would not arise.