SHAIK LAYAK Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under section 482, Cr.P.C., for quashing the conditions imposed in a bail order passed by the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No. 142 of 1980 of Boinpali Police Station, which is within the jurisdictional limites of the XI Metropolitan Magistrate. He was arrested by the Boinpalli Police and was produced before the X Metropolitan Magistrate on 27-10-1980, who was then in-charge of the XI Metropolitan Magistrates Court for being remanded to judicial custody. It was stated by the Police in the remand report that the petitioner admitted having committed the offence under section 379, Indian Penal Code, in Crime No. 122 of 1980 of the Boinpalli Police Station and that on interrogation he confessed to his having committed a number of pick pocketing offences. It was further alleged that the petitioner stated that he disposed of the properties concerned in those pick pocketting offences at Warangal, Vijaywada and Guntur and even promised to take the police to those places for recovering those properties. The petitioner filed an application for bail, when he was produced before the Magistrate along with the remand report. The Magistrate thereupon passed the following order :-

(2.) It is against the conditions in the above referred order that the petitioner has come up to this Court with this application under Section 482, Cr.P.C.

(3.) Sri. B. Veerabhandra Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner never admitted having committed the alleged offence in Crime No. 122 of 1980 and that the allegation that the petitioner confessed to his having committed several offences and promised to show the persons to whom he disposed of those properties at Warangal, Vijaywada and Guntur, is wholly false and invented for the purpose of harassing the accused. It is further contended by the petitioners learned counsel that the conditions imposed by the Magistrate are illegal and beyond the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. The learned Public Prosecutor contends that the petitioner is a notorious criminal, that he confessed to his having committed several offences and to have disposed of the properties at Warangal, Vijayawada and Guntur and that, therefore, the Magistrate directed the petitioner to assist the Investigating Officer by properties were disposed.