SURESH KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.

(2.) Arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that once the Magistrate in a case under S. 307, IPC has granted bail considering the offence to be only under S. 324, IPC. the Sessions Judge should not have entertained the application for cancellation of bail by treating it to be under S. 307, IPC. The facts of this case that need to be mentioned is that in the incident giving rise to this case fire arm injuries were caused to the victim. Section 307, IPC says that if by the act hurt is caused to any person the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life or to such punishment as mentioned in the Section earlier. S. 437, Cr. P.C. visualises that the Magistrate cannot grant bail in cases where there appear reasonable grounds for believing that he has been guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Under S. 307, IPC once injury is caused the offence may be ultimately found to be under S. 307, IPC which may also be punishable with imprisonment for life. The analogy from Section 324, IPC that an injury caused by a firearm may also amount to an offence under S. 324, IPC is of no consequence at this stage. The bail has been granted by the Magistrate treating the injury to be hardly amounting to an offence under S. 324, IPC cannot be justified. There could have been no objection to the bail had it been granted to the applicants by the Sessions Judge, but such an exercise by the Magistrate cannot be condoned.

(3.) Accordingly this application is dismissed.