SEOTI Vs. REX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for bail on behalf of three persons, namely Seoti alias Nekasa, Raja Earn and Nand Kishore, who have been committed to the Court of Session at Mathura by a Magistrate of the first class on a charge under Section 304, Indian Penal Code. Two others have been committed to the Court of Session along with them, but the charge against them is only one under Secs.323 and 147, Indian Penal Code. It may be stated that the applicants Seoti and Raja Ram are the sons of the third applicant Nand Kishore.

(2.) Before the applicants were committed to the Court of Session by an order of the committing Magistrate dated 7-1-1948, the applicants Seoti and Raja Ram had been released on bail by an order of this Court dated 10-9-1947. Nand Kishore had also been released on bail by an order of the Sessions Judge of Mathura. But when the Magistrate committed the applicants to the Court of Session he cancelled their bail and took them into custody. They made an application to the Sessions Judge of Mathura for bail. But he rejected it by an order dated 9-1-1948 on the ground that the offence with which they had been charged was a non-bailable one and that the Government Pleader apprehended that they were, if released on bail likely to tamper with the prosecution evidence. The order is reproduced in paragraph 5 of the affidavit filed on behalf of the applicants.

(3.) The contention raised on behalf of the applicants is that when bail has been granted by the High Court or the Court of Session, it is not within the power of a subordinate Court to can-eel it at a subsequent stage in the proceedings and that therefore the order of the Magistrate cancelling the bail granted to two of the applicants by the High Court and to the third applicant by the Sessions Judge was illegal. It is further contended that this is on the merits a fit case in which the applicants ought to be released on bail.