PARTAP Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application by Partapa Gokala s/o. Rawat Baori, Shanker and Gokal s/o Bhomraj Jat under Sections 497 and 498, Criminal P. C. praying for their release on bail.

(2.) THE facts relevant and material for the disposal of this bail application may be briefly stated as follows: It is alleged that the four petitioners and one Madanlal Kalal hatched out a conspiracy and decided to cut the nose of one Sohanraj. In pursuance of this conspiracy, it is alleged, on 202-1965, the four petitioners assaulted Sohanraj. The three petitioners, Gokala Baori, Gokal Jat and Shanker held Sohanraj under control and Partap petitioner chopped off his nose. Madanlal Kalal who is a co-accused, it is alleged, was standing a few stops away from the site and joined the four petitioners when they were returning after cutting off the nose of Sohanraj. The matter was reported to the police. Partap and Shanker Baories were arrested on 20-2-1965. Gokala Baori was arrested on 25-2-1965 and Gokal Jat was arrested on 26-2-1965. After investigation the police submitted charge sheets against the petitioners as also against Madanlal for an offence under Section 326, Indian Penal Code. After considering the facts of the case the Magistrate passed an order on 23-4-1965 that the case would be tried by him as a warrant-case. In other words, the Magistrate thought himself competent to try the case and award adequate punishment to the petitioners and he did not think it necessary to commit the case to the court of Session for trial. He, therefore, commenced the warrant-case trial and did not proceed to hold an enquiry under Ch. XVIII, Cri. P. C. The case was fixed for recording evidence on 10th of June, 1965. However, before the completion of the trial by the Magistrate, the complainant submitted a revision application in the court of session, Jodhpur, challenging the order of the Magistrate dated 23-41965 directing that the case should be tried as a warrant-case by himself. The complainant considered the offence of nose-cutting a very serious one and felt that the Magistrate was not competent to award adequate punishment and it was this circumstance that led him to file a revision application in the court of session.

(3.) SUBSEQUENTLY the petitioners moved an application in the court of the Magistrate for enlarging them on bail. The Magistrate dismissed the bail application by a brief order dated 18-8-1965. The order of the Magistrate reads as follows: "the file is already in Sessions Court. The bail has already been rejected by the sessions court and no other fresh stage has come up. As regards the adjournment, they can be perused only from the file. The application is rejected. " The petitioners thereafter approached the court of session, Jodhpur. Before the Sessions Judge the counsel for the petitioners relied upon Section 497 (3-A), Criminal P. C. and contended that the Magistrate having not completed the trial within sixty days from the date fixed for recording prosecution evidence they were entitled as a matter of right to be released on bail particularly as the Magistrate did not record any reasons for not releasing the petitioners on bail. The Public Prosecutor contended that the offences relating to cutting of the nose are of very serious nature and deserve to be invariably committed to the court of session. He relied upon Queen Empress v. Abdul Rahiman, (1892) ILR 16 Bom 580 in support of his contention. The learned Sessions Judge observed that the offence alleged to have been committed is of a serious nature and that the case deserves to be committed to the court of session and referred to the pendency of complainant's revision and held that the accused-petitioners were not entitled to claim release on bail as a matter of right under Section 497, Sub-section 3a, Cri. P. C. The petitioners have approached this Court under Sections 497 and 498, Cri. P. C.