NANDAKUMAR SUKLA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition for bail on behalf of Nandakumar Sukla, who has been committed to take his trial in the Court of Session for offences under Sections 302 and 201, Indian Penal Code, by the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Puri.

(2.) It appears that while the commitment proceedings were pending in the Magistrate's Court, a petition was filed by the Advocate-General before the High Court for cancellation of the bail already granted to the petitioner in a previous order of the Court dated 19th January 1950. That petition was heard on 24-61950 by my learned brother Panigrahi, J.,' who. while cancelling the bail bond of the petitioner, observed: "that he shall be committed to jail custody forthwith pending completion of proceedings before the Magistrate, and during his trial in the Court of Session when committed to that Court." Apparently, in view of these observations of the High Court, the Committing Magistrate has refused to grant bail; but in the order of commitmen he has observed: "He is remanded to jail custody pending further orders from the Court of Session."

(3.) The order of brother Panigrahi, J., dated the 24th June 1950, was based on certain materials collected by the police and mentioned in the Case Diary and also on the evidence of some witnesses recorded by the Committing Magistrate. But at present, the commitment proceeding is over and all the available evidence collected by the police has already been placed before the Court. Therefore, the Court of Session will be in a better position to go through the entire evidence and decide on merits whether this is a fit case for granting bail. That Court need not be in any way influenced by the observation made in the order of the High Court dated 24th June 1950, regarding the petitioner's remaining in jail custody during the trial of the Court of Session, and should exercise its own independent judgment on the question of granting bail.