SURYA NARAIN Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present application raises certain interesting questions of law. The three petitioners were granted bail by the CJM, Jaunpur in a criminal case which was registered for an offence under Section 394, IPC. Aggrieved with the order granting bail to them, the complainant (present respondent No. 3) moved the Sessions Judge, Jaunpur in Application No. 28 of 1996 for cancellation of the bail order recorded in Crl. Case No. 253 of 1994. The learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 1-5-1998 accepted the prayer and cancelled the bail order recorded by the CJM in favour of the present three applicants. The CJM, Jaunpur, was directed to ensure the presence of the accused persons through process of law. This order is under callenges in the present application.

(2.) It was contended on behalf of the applicants that bail once granted could not have been cancelled except for proven misuse of the privilege and it was further indicated that an earlier application for cancellation of bail was moved vide Application No. 58 of 1994 and the same was rejected by the Sessions Judge on 22-1-1996 and the order read as follows :

(3.) The FIR was lodged on 5-9-1994 at about 8.20 a.m. for an incident at one in the previous night. The informant was one Ram Bachan Yadav who was informed by Ram Asrey, watchman in a school, along with one Raja Ram Yadav, Some miscreants entered into the school, demanded the key and assaulted Raja Ram Yadav mercilessly and took away valuables from the office of the institution after breaking open the almirah. Ram Asrey claimed to have seen the miscreants. None was, however, named. A statement was given by injured Raja Ram Yadav on 8-9-1994, wherein he had named the present applicants. It was urged on behalf of the present applicants that they and the aforesaid Raja Ram Yadav were men from the same village and their names should have come in the FIR itself had they really been there. In his order dated 1-5-98 the learned Sessions Judge found that Section 437(1), Cr. P.C. was a definite bar for the CJM to exercise his discretion towards grant of bail and, as such, he thought it to be a proper case for cancellation of bail on the ground of wrong exercise of jurisdiction of the CJM.