STATE Vs. GOPIKISHEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS reference comes on the report of the District Magistrate Bikaner, dated 28th October, 1953.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to it are that on 6th April, 1953, one Gopi Kishen presented an application in the court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Bikaner, to the effect that one Kanaiyalal S/o Hardutt Sunar of Deshnok had lodged a report with the police alleging that the applicant had committed to an offence under sec. 406 IPC, that the said report was false and the complainant simply wanted to get him arrested put him to indignity and harassment and therefore he should be released on bail. This application was presented by Ishwardayal Advocate on behalf of the accused Gopikishen. On this application, Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed an order directing the PSI to make a report, THEreupon the PSI made a report that Case No. 18 was registered against the accused under sec. 406 IPC on 19th March, 1953. It was further pointed out that the offence was non-bailable, that it would be difficult to recover the property in case the accused was released on bail and thus the application was opposed. THE applicant's advocate then requested for an adjournment to give him some time to produce authority in support of his application. On the 11th April, 1953, counsel for the accused presented another application for relating the accused on bail. THEreupon the Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed a brief order in the following words: - "one surety of Rs. 500/- and personal bond of like amount. " On the 13th April 1953, the accused executed his personal bond and also furnished security for his appearance in the court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Bikaner, for Rs. 500/ -. THE prosecuting Inspector then filed a revision in the court of the District Magistrate Bikaner, challenging the validity of the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate allowing the bail application of the accused. THE learned District Magistrate has made a report that since the accused did not appear personally before the court and since the Vakalatnama of Shri Ishwar Dayal was not signed by him, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate had no authority to release the accused under sec. 497 Cr. P. C. He has recommended that the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate granting the bail should be set aside.