MAHESHWAR SINGH @ MAHESH SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are aggrieved by the order of the Sessions Judge, East Champaran, dated 28-11-1998, suo motu cancelling bail granted to them by the CJM, Motihari, in Motihari Town PS Case No. 41 of 1997 under Sections 379, 411, 504 and 307, IPC, Section 25 Arms Act and Sections 33, 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act.

(2.) The Sessions Judge has taken exception to the order of the CJM as being at a tangent with his order dated 27-5-1997 passed in BP No.517/97 in which while considering the prayer for bail on behalf of a co-accused he (Sessions Judge) had observed that the petitioners herein are the key persons involved in the smuggling of khair wood. He has stated that there are sufficient materials in the case diary to suggest the implication of these petitioners in the crime. The Sessions Judge has termed the order of the CJM as judicially improper. He has, in fact, gone to the extent of observing that the same stinks of extraneous consideration I have con-sidered the matter.

(3.) I am afraid, on the facts stated in the impugned order, it is not possible to uphold the same. The order of CJM, no doubt, appears to be a laboured one. He had also erred in treating the offences under the Indian Forest Act as bailable unmindful of Bihar amendment of he Forest Act, but in the absence of any material constituting misuse of privilege of bail subsequent to his release, I do not think on the grounds stated in the impugned order, bail should be cancelled much less suo motu. In these premises, I am inclined to set aside the impugned order of the Sessions Judge, but with liberty to him to call for reports from the police as well as the Forest officials regarding any sub-sequent violation of the provisions of the Forest Act and in the event the petitioners are found to be indulging in activities constituting offence under that Act to pass fresh order of cancellation of bail after notice.