RAM SEWAK Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) K. Narayan, J. This is an application for bail by Ram Sewak, Kalloo. Satish and Ghanshyam said to be involved in a case under Section 393, I. P. C. and Sees. 2 (B), 10/12 of D. A. A. Act registered at Crime No. 107 of 1994, P. S. Kulpahad, district Hamirpur.

(2.) IT appears from the copy of the order dated 23-11-94 rendered by the Special Judge D. A. A. Act, rejecting the bail of the applicants as he had been led by the idea that the accused-applicants could not be granted bail before 180 days unless it could be concluded that there was no case made out against them. I find myself unable to agree with this impression of the learned Judge and it seems to be in disregard to the law laid already down by this Court in the case of Kamal Singh v. State of U. P. , 1990 (1) JIC 741 : 1990 (27) ACC 228. In this case, it has been specifically laid down that the Proviso to Section 10 of the D. A. |a. Act does not say that bail cannot be granted within 180 days and also that on the other hand the Proviso states that after the expiry of 180 days the Court may release the accused on such conditions as it deems fit.

(3.) THIS Proviso has an exception to the direction contained by way of clause (a) and (b), though ordinarily principle may be that a person is not to be admitted to bail unless it is considered that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence, if he has been under detention for a period of 180 days, the bail may be considered and allowed subject to the conditions as the Court may deem lit and proper to impose. The impression taken by the Judge that bail cannot be considered before the expiry of 180 days, is totally unwarranted by the contents of the Section and the place of the proviso therein.