SURENDRA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been filed by Surendra, Mahavir and Sita Ram against the order of the Sessions Judge, Meerut dated 26th August, 1975 cancelling the bail granted to them by the Magistrate.

(2.) IT appears that bail had been originally granted by the Magistrate m this treating the case to be one under sections 147, 323 and 324, I.P.C. only. An application for cancelling the bail was moved before the learned Magistrate on the ground that the case was in fact under section 307, I.P. C. He rejected that application by his order dated 21-7-1975 observing that the proper forum for applying for cancellation of bail was Sessions Court. He has also obser, that the bail already granted would be deemed to have been granted under section 307, I.P.C. also. It appears from order dated 21-7-1975 that the details the injuries were not available at the time when he had granted the bail earlier. The learned Sessions Judge took the view that there was clearly an intention to kill because there were 36 injuries out of which 10 were on the Dead and there were four fractures. He did not cancel the bail of some persons who were said to have been armed with Ballam and Jeli as there was no injury with these weapons but he cancelled the bail of the present applicants.

(3.) THE powers of a Magistrate in granting bail are limited under section 437 (1), Cr.P.C. In a case where there appears reasonable ground for believing that the accused has been guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, a Magistrate has no power to grant bail unless the case is covered by the proviso to that sub-section, that is, the accused is under the age of 16 years or is a woman or is, a sick or infirm person. The Magistrate obviously acted without jurisdiction in granting bail to a person against whom the offence was under section 307, I.P.C. From the order dated 21-7-1975 passed by the Magistrate, it appears that the entire data was not before him when he had granted the bail. The learned Sessions Judge was justified in cancelling the bail only on the ground that the Magistrate had acted beyond his jurisdiction.