SHEOBACHAN PANDEY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question for decision raised in this appln. is whether there is jurisdiction in a Mag. when committing an accused for trial to a Ct. of Session, to order him to be taken into custody, when previously there had been an order passed by the Ses. J. for the release of the accused on bail.

(2.) The three petnrs. along with three others--have been committed to the Ct. of Session to take-their trial on a charge of murder & abetment of murder. During the commitment stage, an appln. had been moved to the Sections J. for the release of the petnrs. on bail & an order was passed accordingly. Subsequently, when committing the accused to the Ct. of Session, the committing Mag. refused to allow them to remain on bail. Against this last order the six accused moved the Ses. J. who ordered for the release of three of them on bail but rejected the appln. of the three petnrs. before us. Before us, accordingly, it is now contended that the order of the committing Mag. refusing the prayer of the petnrs. for bail was-without jurisdiction since the order of the Ses. J. releasing them on bail still remained in force, & that, therefore, the petnrs. should be ordered to be released from custody forthwith.

(3.) Mr. Sanyal, who has appeared on behalf of the petnrs. has placed reliance upon some cases in support of his contention. He has cited Ahmad v. The Grown, A.I.R. (97) 1950 Lab. 185 : (Pak. T. R. (1950) Lab. 720), The Crown Prosecutor v. N. S. Krishnan, A. I. R. (as) 1945 Mad. 250 : (47 Cr. L. T. 106) & Seoti V. Rex, A. I. E. (35) 1948 ALL. 566 : (49 Cr. L. J. 521 F. B.).