DEOMAN Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard finally by consent. Admit.

(2.) It has been submitted on behalf of the applicant-complainant in Crime No. 151/2013 initially registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 341, 324, 325, 294, 506, 452 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code against the non-applicant Nos. 2 to 11 and later on also under Section 326, read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code that the learned Magistrate Digras could not have exercised suo motu powers to release the non-applicant Nos. 2 to 11 or the accused persons on bail for subsequently added offence punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, without these accused persons asking for their release on bail for the said Sections. He submits, relying upon the ratio of the case of Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. N.C.T. Delhi and another, 2001 AIR(SC) 1444, which had been followed in the case of Uttamkumar s/o. Chandrakant Wagh and another vs. State of Maharashtra, 2013 1 MhLJ 695: that when newly added Section prescribes maximum punishment of life imprisonment or death penalty, the only course available to the Magistrate is to direct the accused persons to be taken into custody and commit them to Magisterial Custody Remand, unless their case is covered under the proviso to Section 437 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

(3.) Learned A.P.P. for the respondent No. 1/State submits that it is a fact that the learned Magistrate had exercised suo moto powers in this case, but such exercise of the power not having resulted in failure of justice, cannot be seen to be providing a sufficient ground for making interference with the impugned order.