R.K. NABACHANDRA SINGH Vs. MANIPUR ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition directed against the order of the Sessions Judge, dated 25 -5 -1963, by which he cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner by the S. D. M. Imphal West on 8 -5 -1963 and directed the bail petition to be heard afresh and to be disposed of by the Additional District Magistrate, instead of by the S. D. M., I. W.

(2.) THE facts which relate to this revision petition are as follows:

(3.) THE petitioner was produced before the S. D. M., I. W. at 2 -30 p.m. on 8 -5 -1963 with a report from the I/O stating that he was arrested at 3 -00 p.m. on 7 -5 -1963,in connection with F.I.R. 386 (5) 63 dated 6 -5 -1963 under Section 366 I.P.C., that the investigation was going on and that he may be remanded to Jail custody for a period of 15 days to enable the completion of the investigation. It would appear that the statement of the girl recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., which was called for by the Magistrate in his order in the second bail petition moved on that day was also produced before the Magistrate. But the copy of the entries in the Police Diary relating to the case were not produced even though the Magistrate had personally asked the Prosecutor to produce them. The Magistrate waited till 5 -30 p.m. but as the copy of the entries with diary were not produced till then, he passed an order granting bail to the petitioner. In the said order, he stated that the statement of the girl under Section 164 showed that she had prior relation with the petitioner and that she had asked the petitioner to wait till she finished her education. The Magistrate criticised the Police for not producing the relevant papers under Section 167 Cri.P.C. and he further said that there was no report from the Police even opposing the bail, that the prosecution could not give any satisfactory reason why the petitioner should not be granted bail and that it was not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner would abscond or of her wise tamper with the investigation and hence he did not see any reason why he should be remanded to Jail and why bail should be refused.