VIRENDRA SINGH A CHANDOK Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Counsel for the parties. The present Application questions the correctness of order passed by the Metropolitan magistrate, 10th Court dated 9th July, 2004, enlarging the Respondents 2 and 3 on bail. According to the Applicant, the Applicant has registered offence with M. I. D. C. Police Station, mumbai against the Respondents 2 and 3 under sections 324, 326, 354 and 114 of the Indian penal Code. The grivance is that inspite of the fact that the allegation is one of offence committed under Section 326 of the Indian penal Code, which is punishable by imprisonment for life, the concerned Magistrate has enlarged the Respondents 2 and 3 on bail by a cryptic order, which reads thus :

(2.) IT is the case of the Applicant that the concerned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to grant bail to Respondents 2 and 3 in the fact situation of the present case. It is further argued that assuming that the Magistrate could have entertained the Bail Application, it was obligatory on him to record a clear finding negativing the existence of reasonable ground for believing that such accused is guilty of an offence punishable with sentence for life, as in the present case. Applicant has placed reliance on the medical certificate which indicates that amongst others, injury of composite fracture has been noted in respect of Thorax Lumbosacral spine, which clearly qualifies the offence under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, punishable with imprisonment for life.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel has placed reliance on the decision of our High Court reported in 1996 (2) Mh. LJ. 485 in the case of state of Maharashtra Vs. Kaushar Yasin qureshi and Anr. to buttress this submission that the order as passed by the concerned Magistrate which is impugned in this Application cannot be sustained at all.