SURAJLAL HARILAL MAJMUDAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition against the order of the Sessions Judge, Broach & Panch Mahals, refusing bail to the petitioners who were charged with the offences punishable under Section 332 of the Indian Penal Code and Rule 120 of the Rules under the Defence of India Act, 1939.

(2.) NOW ordinarily both these offences would be bailable offences under the Second Schedule to the Criminal Procedure Code dealing with "Offences against other Laws "; for, according to the fifth column thereunder all offences if punishable with imprisonment for one year and upwards, but less than three years, are treated as bailable. Under the imperative provisions of Section 496 of the Criminal Procedure Code the accused would be entitled to be released on bail for the offences in question which fall under that description. But the learned Sessions Judge thought that the provisions of Section 496 are abrogated by Rule 130A of the Defence of India Rules, and that under the provisions of that rule a discretion is vested in the Court in the matter of refusing bail even in bailable offences. Accordingly on a very full and careful consideration of the circumstances he has refused bail to the petitioners.

(3.) ON the merits, it is futile to say that the grounds for refusing bail are without any cogency. The learned Judge has given very good reasons for holding that in the peculiar circumstances bail should not be given. According to usual practice this Court will not interfere with the discretion of the lower Courts in such matters when judicially exercised. Therefore this petition is rejected.