SAGRI BHAGAT Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are applns. for bail by certain persona who are being prosecuted under Section 7, Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act. The appln. which has been registered as Cr. Misc. No. 629 of 1950 has been filed by one Sagri Bhagat, son of Baldeo Bhagat, & by Sagri Bhagat's son Nathuni Bhagat. The other appln. is by three persons, named Ramsunder Panjiar, Dhanukdhari Ram & Ramprit Singh. Both the cases had been placed before my Lord the Chief Justice sitting singly & in Cr. Misc. No. 629 his Lordship passed the following order on 15-11-1950 : "This appln. will be heard. Issue notice returnable within ten days. The question whether this matter will be referred to a Division Bench will be considered later on." By virtue of an order passed in Cr. Misc. No. 642 of 1950 on 23-11-1950 both the applns. were ordered to be put up before a Division Bench for hearing, & the order of his Lordship the Chief Justice dated 23-11-1950 runs as follows: "This appln. will be heard. Issue notice returnable within seven days. Let this appln. be put up for hearing with Cr. Misc. 629 of 1950 before a Division Bench." It has been stated by Mr. Baldeo Sahay, who appeared for the petnrs., that the reason for placing these applns. before a Division Bench is to get an authoritative decision on the question whether bail can or should be granted in such cases.

(2.) On 7-12-1950 we directed that the petnr. Sagri Bhagat of Case No. 629 & all the petnrs. of the other case be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Dist. Mag., & we have now to give detailed reasons for the order which we have passed. The question of bail does not arise so far as Nathuni Bhagat, the appct. 2 of case NO. 629, is concerned inasmuch as this appct. has since been detained by reason of a detention order passed under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950.

(3.) Regarding the petnr. 1, Sagri Bhagat of case No. 629 it is alleged that he is aged more than 70 years & on account of age & infirmity, is incapable of doing any business. This petnr. is being prosecuted on the ground that when his house, shop & godown were searched 552 1/2 pairs of saris & dhoties were found, though, according to the Stock Register the stock should have been only 551 pairs. The other allegation against this petnr. is that he had kept a certain quantity of cloth concealed in a bhuskar. The alleged difference in the account is quite negligible, & the only allegation against this petnr. which has to be considered seriously is whether he had kept some cloth concealed in a bhuskar. The petner.'s answer to this allegation is that the bhuskar in which the cloth was found belong to one Mulchand Sah.