Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. By means of this application moved under Sections 482/407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the order dated 7th May, 1997 passed by Sri B. K. Rathi, learned District and Sessions Judge, Allahabad releasing S/Sri Asharfi Lal, Sarva Singh and Smt. Nirja Singh, opposite party Nos. 2,3 and 4, who are inolved in case under Sections 302/201, I.P.C. on interim bail during the pendency of the bail application has been challenged and it is prayed that the aforesaid order be quashed and the opposite party Nos. 2, 3 and 4 be directed to be taken in custody immediately. The prayer that bail application filed by the opposite parties Nos. 2, 3 and 4 be transferred to some adjoining district or to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge at Allahabad has also been made.

6. Parties would swim or sink with the law as has been laid down by a Full Bench of this Court in Dr. Vinod Narain's case (supra). Learned counsel for the opposite parties Nos. 2 to 4 painstakingly and strenuously argued that reading of the separate judgements delivered by Hon'ble five Judges, who constituted the Full Bench would indicate that there was no unanimity on the point that a Sessions Judge can or cannot grant interim or short term bail during the pendency of the bail application. It was pointed out that Hon'ble B. M. Lal, J. had taken the view that interim or short term bail can be granted during the pendency of the bail application and that Hon'ble G. S. N. Tripathi, J. had also concurred with Hon'ble B.M. Lal, J. on the point. It was further urged that certain observations made by Hon'ble Palok Basu, J. also do not run counter to that view taken by Hon'ble B. M. Lai, J. The entire decision of the Full Bench was scanned before me. Sri Ravi Kiran Jain went to the extent of making the submission that since the Full Bench decision is per incurium it is required to be referred to a larger Bench and it is a fit case where this Court, even though, sitting singly, should make a reference in the matter. In support to his contention the learned counsel placed reliance on a number of decision. I have read and re-read the Full Bench decision in Dr. Vinod Narain's case (supra) and find that the law has been laid down in its explicit terms and does not require any reference. I feel found by the said authority and, therefore, proceed to decide the present application with reference to the law laid down in the aforesaid Full Bench decision.

8. The law, as has been authoritatively pronounced by the said Full Bench, is that no Magistrate, Sessions Judge, or any other Court has jurisdiction to grant interim bail during the pendency of bail application in that Court.

9. The order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Allahabad on 7-5-1997 releasing opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 on short term bail during the pendency of the bail application was obviously in disregard of the law laid down in Vinod Narain's case (supra).

10. Sri Ravi Kiran Jain learned counsel for the accused-opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 further urged that even if it be taken that the learned Sessions Judge has committed an honest mistake in passing the impugned order it cannot be treated as without jurisdiction as the said order has been passed after hearing both the sides. There is a dispute on the point whether the order of short term bail was passed by the learned Sessions Judge after hearing counsel on behalf of the State or not. In the rejoinder affidavit, it has been stated that the copy of the bail application was received by the D.G.C. (Criminal) at 5 p.m. on 7-5-1997 and therefore, at the time of the passing of the order for short term bail, the State Counsel was not heard. It was also pointed out that the Opposite Party No. 3, Sarva Singh, who has filed acounter-affidavit, was not present in the Court as he was in custody and in the lock up, and therefore, his affidavit verified on his personal knowledge that the Stale counsel was heard had to be ignored. The tone and tenor of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge clearly indicates that the counsel for the State was not heard before passing the order. If the counsel for the State had been heard, there was hardly any occasion to order for issue of notice as has been incorporated in the order. I, therefore, proceed on the assumption that the order, in question, was passed without hearing the learned counsel for the State.

16. Shorn of all superfluities and to sum up, it may be observed that no Magistrate or a Sessions Judge is empowered to grant interim bail to the accused during the pendency of his bail application. This is the precise and exact majority view expressed in the Full Bench decision in the case of Dr. Vinod Narain (supra). The order passed by learned Sessions Judge is clearly against the parameters laid down in the aforesaid authoritative pronouncement. The reasons and circumstances, which impelled the learned Sessions Judge to grant short term bail to the accused-opposite parties do not stand the test or scrutiny of law. The order has violated the provisions of law and has thus resulted in subverting the process inherent in the bail determination. On factual and legal matrix there was no ground to release the accused-opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 on interim bail, particularly when they were involved in a heinous crime of murder.