Orissa High Court
Smt. Basanta Sahu vs Padma Charan Sahu And Ors. on 7 May, 1990
Equivalent citations: 1991(I)OLR138
Author: R.C. Patnaik
Bench: R.C. Patnaik
ORDER
1. A complaint is made that the injured . Arakhita Sahoo has not been examined by the. Investigating Officer If that be so, we direct the investigating Officer to examine the injured and record his statement and secure the injury report relating to him from the S. C. B. Medical College Hospital
2. Heard counsel for the parties. Having regard to the facts ajid circumstances, we direct release of each of the accused persons on bail of Rs. 5000/- each with two sureties-for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate concerned.
3. We, however, observe in this connection that while disposing application for anticipatory bail, the learned Sessions Judge should not have directed release of the accused persons on bail as if he was dealing with an application Under Section 439, Cr. P.C with the rejection of the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, the proceeding Under Section 438, Cr. P. C. came to an end The applicants by then had not surrendered and if they were to surrender, they were to do so before the Magistrate who under the law is to deal with an application for bill, if made. We deprecate the practice which is developing in some quarters of seeking bail Under Section 439, Cr.P.C from the learned Sessions Judge in proceedings Under Section 488, Cr. P.C. by-passing the Migistrate who should ordinarily deal with the matter as the Court of first instance. Since under the procedure, the Magistrate Is to be approached first, by-passing him should not be encouraged.
4. However, since the applicants have already moved the Magi- strate, we direct their' release taking into consideration the fact that the learned Sessions Judge at one stage released them on bail.
5. A copy of the order to be circulated to all the Sessions Judges of the State. Urgent certified copy, if applied for, be granted in course of the day.