KHALIQ WAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision application is directed against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Baramulla, dated June 9, 1973 by which he has cancelled the bail which was granted to the petitioner by the Judicial Magistrate, Handwara, by his order dated June 2, 1973. The short facts giving rise to this present petition are as follows:

(2.) ON the night intervening 12th and 13th of May, 1973 fire broke out ins the shop line of the town of Handwara District Baramulla, as a consequence of which one of the shop belonging to one Khaliq Kaboo got affected by the fire. According to the prosecution this shop is adjacent to the shop of the present petitioner. The petitioner was arrested on suspicion that he was responsible for the fire and that he had done so with the motive of obtaining a large sum of money from the Insurance Company. It may also be mentioned here that there was no eye-witness of the occurrence i. e. to say in support of the allegation. that it was the petitioner who had set. the shop on fire. The petitioner was therefore taken into custody and a case was registered against him. He applied for bail before the Judicial Magistrate, Handwara. The learned Judicial Magistrate heard the objections which had been raised by the P. O. and then on June 2, 1973 on a consideration of the circumstances of the case, he granted bail to the petitioner. The prosecution then moved an application before the learned Sessions Judge on June 7, 1973 praying therein that the bail so granted to the petitioner should be cancelled because it had been granted unjustifiably and illegally by the learned Magistrate. A notice was issued on the petitioner and according to the learned Sessions Judge the petitioner did not turn up in spite of the service of the notice with the result that the matter was heard ex parte i. e. in the absence of the petitioner. The learned Sessions Judge en a consideration of the matter and in light of the view which he took he was of the opinion that the learned Judicial Magistrate could not have granted the bail in a case as in the present one which was triable by a Sessions Court, He was also of the opinion that the case was such that bail ought not to have been granted. He therefore, cancelled the order of the bail and this obviously was under Sub-section (5) of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(3.) THE petitioner being aggrieved with this order has come up in revision against this order and at the time of the hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner made his submission mainly on three grounds i. e.