RAJENDRA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the applicants and learned Additional Government Advocate.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the appli ­cants contends that in this case initially the FIR was registered as a missing person. Thereafter on the application of the com ­plainant the case was converted to one un ­der sections 364 and 120 -B IPC and in the said case the applicants secured bail from the Sessions Court on 21.7.2005, but by or ­der dated 2.1.2008, the charge has been framed also under section 302 IPC and now the Special/Additional Sessions Judge/FTC No. 1, Saharanpur desires that the applicants may also secure bail under section 302 IPC.

(3.) I do not think that is the ratio of the decision in Hamida v. Rashid alias Rash ­eed and others (supra). The aforesaid ruling in quite clear that in these interlocutory matters the requirement of law is that the accused is required to surrender and then apply for bail and that procedure cannot be short circuited and it has been specifically observed in paragraph 13 that tendency of the High Court to utilise section 482 Cr.P.C. for all and sundry matters is undesirable and the said jurisdiction should be exer ­cised sparingly with circumspection in rare cases and that too when miscarriage of jus ­tice is done.