ANANT DATTATRAYA SATHE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PARTIES by Counsel. Rule returnable forthwith.

(2.) THE applicant/s have filed application for bail before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Buldana for the release of the applicant/s on bail for offences punishable under sections 10 and 13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The learned Magistrate, in paragraph 8 of the order, has referred to section 17 of the Act and rejected the application on the ground that the Court cannot take cognizance of the offence and nowhere in the Act it is mentioned that the Court granting remand or magisterial custody can release the accused on bail. The applicants, therefore, approached the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Buldana for bail. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Buldana, vide his order dated 19-12-1992, rejected the application for bail on more or less same grounds as given by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Both the courts below have observed that the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offences under sections 10 and 13 of the Act in order to pass an order on the bail application and have held that they have no jurisdiction to release the applicant/s on bail.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY, the accused in this case were produced before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate under section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure lays down the procedure where investigation cannot be completed in 24 hours. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate granted magisterial custody remand till 30-12-1992. The Magistrate has referred to the argument of learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing before that Court for the particular provision and commentary under section 90 which reads as under :