SARADAMMA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Crl. M. P. No. 189 of 1965 was filed by Saradamma, the 5th accused in P.R.C. No. 27 of 1964 on the file of the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Cuddapah. Crl.M.P. No. 192 of 1965 was filed on behalf of A-2, A-6 and A-7 in the same case. The learned Sessions Judge of Cuddapah granted bail to all these accused on condition that they should confine their movements to the municipal limits of the Cuddapah town during the pendency of the Sessions case and report themselves to the police station twice every day. These petitions are filed contending that the order imposing those conditions is illegal.

(2.) In order to appreciate the contention advanced, a few facts may be stated These petitioners and three others were charged under sections 120-B, 420, 468 and 471, Indian Penal Code. Accused 3 and 9 are not yet apprehended. The first accused had not applied for bail at all. The present petitioners were granted bail subject to the conditions aforesaid.

(3.) The contention of Mr. Hasan, the learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioners is that, a Court has no power under section 497, Criminal Procedure Code, to impose conditions other than those provided for in section 499, viz., fixing a sum of money with two sureties for the attendance of the accused at the time and place mentioned in the bond as directed by the police officer, or the Court, as the case may be. The argument is that, if any other terms are imposed, they are contrary to sections 497 and 499, Criminal Procedure Code, and as such illegal. Relevant portions of sections 496 to 499, Criminal Procedure Code, may usefully be extracted :