Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. The Division Bench of this Court, in the aforesaid judgment, had held that in cases which were governed by Sections 436 and 437 CrPC, the provisions of Section 88 CrPC would not be applicable for the reason that Section 436 and 437 CrPC are specific provisions which deal with particular kind of cases, whereas scope of Section 88 CrPC is much wider. The case, in which Section 436 CrPC is applicable, an accused has to appear before the Court, and thereafter, only the question of granting bail would arise. It had been further held that where summon or warrant to an accused was issued, the procedure under Section 436 and 437 CrPC would be necessarily followed, and summon or warrant, as the case may be, had to be executed and honoured.

25. Another judgment which is relevant in this context is the judgment of the Patna High Court in Anand Deo Singh v. State of Bihar [Anand Deo Singh v. State of Bihar, 2000 SCC OnLine Pat 311 : (2000) 2 PLJR 686] . The Patna High Court had the occasion to consider Section 88 CrPC where in para 18, following has been held: (SCC OnLine Pat) "18. In my considered view, Section 88 of the Code is an enabling provision, which vests a discretion in the Magistrate to exercise power under the said section asking the person to execute a bond for appearance only in bailable cases or in trivial cases and it cannot be resorted to in cases of serious offences. Section 436 of the Code itself provides that bond may be asked for only in cases of bailable offences."