Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Guman Mal Lodha, Actg. C.J.

1. In this reference the learned Single Judge has referred the following point for clarification by a larger bench of this Court:

When an accused who has been released on bail under Section 167(2) Cr. PC is committed to Sessions in custody whether such commitment in custody can only be done after cancelling the bail on the grounds mentioned in Shokin Nath and Rewat Dan's cases or can also be so done in cases where accused have committed serious offences like that of bride burning, murder with dacoity etc.?
The principle No, (6) deduced by the learned Single Judge is as under:
(6) Bail granted under Section 167(2) shall remain valid till it is cancelled and the cancellation of the bail can only be on the grounds known to law and the receipt of the charge-sheet in Court can by itself be no ground for cancellation of the bail.

7. The learned Single Judge then came to the conclusion that the question whether the powers of cancellation of bail or committing the accused in custody at the time of commitment are limited to the decisions reported in Shokin Nath v. The State of Rajasthan 1977 RCC 43 and Rewat Dan v. The State of Rajasthan 1974 RLW 267 or whether read in the light of the above decision of the Supreme Court in Bashir's case (supra), they would further cover cases of bride burning, murder with dacoity etc.

19. In our opinion the cases of bride burning, murder with dacoity or such cases stand on much higher footing in their gravity and seriousness and, therefore there is no doubt that if proper case is made out where the Magistrate finds that there are sufficient grounds to hold that the accused has committed an offence of the nature of bride burning or murder with dacoity, the two examples given by the learned Single Judge, or of such a serious and heinous nature, then it certainly follows that he has committed a non-bailable offence. As a logical corollary to it, the Magistrate not only can cancel the bail in such cases, but normally he would be required to cancel the bail, because once it is made out that one of the grounds contained in Section 437(1) is made out, not only he is empowered but legally duty bund to cancel the bail and commit the accused in custody of jail except in some exceptional circumstances.

22. In view of the above, the reference which has been made by the learned Single Judge, may now be answered as under:

Whenever the accused released on bail under Section 167(2) Cr. P.C. is committed to court of Sessions, such commitment in custody can be done after cancelling the bail on the grounds mentioned in Shokin Math's case and Rewat Dan's case as now enlarged by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bashir's case, as mentioned above and further such cancellation can always be done in cases where there are serious offences like that of bride burning, murder with dacoity etc.