DHENA SUREN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for bail. It appears that a first information was lodged on the 11th of May, 1975, alleging, in so far as this petitioner is concerned, that he had gone to a certain field in possession of the prosecution party along with 40 to 50 persons, all with bows and arrows and other weapons, and ordered them all to assault the prosecution party, himself shooting an arrow which hit one Soukat Ali in the neck, resulting in his death, and several other persons were also assaulted. As a result, the petitioner was arrested on 13th of May, 1975. He filed a petition for bail, and by an order dated the 21st of July, 1975, in view of the provisions of Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, bail was granted to the petitioner "till submission of final form". On the 20th of December, 1975, charge-sheet was submitted by the police against the petitioner and others. On that very date this case was transferred to a Magistrate, Mr. J.L. Chowdhary. On the 4th of March, 1976, the petitioner filed an application that he had been granted bail and should be allowed to continue on the same bail; and order to that effect was passed by the Magistrate. Thereafter, it appears that the case came to be in seisin of another Magistrate who, it is said, succeeded Mr. Chowdhary on his transfer. On the 11th of May, 1976, some other accused prayed for bail on the ground that the main assailant, namely, the petitioner himself had been released on bail. The learned Magistrate rejected their prayer and considered the case of the petitioner as well. He ordered cancellation of the bail and directed him to be taken in custody. The accused then absented himself, and on the 26th of May 1976 the order of cancellation of bail was reiterated and non-bailable warrant of arrest was issued against him and also notice to the bailors. The petitioner then went up to the Sessions Judge for grant of bail, who by his order dated the 15th of June, 1976, refused the prayer. Hence this application.

(2.) Mr. Samaiyar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has raised the only point that the bail once granted under Section 167(2) of the Code could not be cancelled by the Magistrate who came to be in seisin of the case subsequently on the ground that final form had been submitted against the petitioner. In this connection, it has also been urged that the initial order granting bail limiting the same "until the submission of the final form" was itself illegal. Reliance has been placed on two decisions of a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court in Ram Murti v. State 1976 Cri LJ 211 (All) and Ram Pal Singh v. State of U.P. 1976 Cri LJ 288 (All).

(3.) It may be stated at the outset that the petitioner made no grievance against the condition in the order by which he was allowed bail, though conditional, on the 21st of July, 1975. The facts of the case reported in 1976 Cri LJ 288 (All) were different, inasmuch as the petitioners had gone up to that Court against the order by which it was made conditional. In the other case, 1976 Cri LJ 211 (All) also the facts were different. No reason had been assigned by the Magistrate for cancelling the bail, and it was done only because final form had been submitted. The two decisions have, therefore, no application to the present case.