STATE Vs. ANIRUDHA HARIJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been filed by the State against the order of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Bhawanipatna who enlarged the opposite party on bail on his filing and moving a petition for bail before the said Assistant Sessions Judge. This bail petition was filed along with the memo of appeal addressed to the Sessions Judge. As the Sessions Judge was at Bolangir, the Assistant Sessions Judge, Bhawanipatna disposed of the said bail petition by granting the same by the impugned order. Admittedly, the Sessions Judge, Bolangir, had authorised the Assistant Sessions Judge, Bhawanipatna under the provisions of Sub -Section (4) of Section 17, Criminal Procedure Code, to receive Criminal Appeals and applications on behalf of the Sessions Judge and in his absence, and to dispose of the urgent applications under the aforesaid authority, and soon thereafter to transmit those papers to the court of the Sessions Judge for registration of the appeal and for further orders.

(2.) MR . Dhal, the learned counsel appearing for the State contended that the Assistant Sessions Judge acted illegally and without jurisdiction in granting bail so the opposite party as the above authorisation by the Sessions Judge was not in accordance with law, and the Assistant Sessions Judge was not legally competent to receive the bail petition and the memo of appeal presented before him. It is however stated in the revision petition and also submitted by Mr. Dhal that the petitioner is not particular for the cancellation of the bail granted in favour of the opposite party; but is anxious to get the law, involved in this case, settled once for all.

(3.) IN the Patna decision Sahai J., in appending his views on the question specifically urged before them, however observed as follows :