LexPRAHLAD SINGH BHAT versus N.C. T., DELHI AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A PRAHLAD SINGH BHAT! v. }._ N.C. T., DELHI AND ANR. MARCH 23, 2001 B [K.T. THOMAS AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Sections 436, 437, 438 and 439. Bail-Principles governing grant of-Offences triable exclusively by c Court of Sessions-Bail for-Power of Magistrate to grant bail in such of- fences-Scope of A case under Sections 306 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered against respondent No. 2. He moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail. The Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi granted D him interim bail. Subsequently, a charge sheet was filed against the ac- cused under Sections 302, 406 and 498-A of I.P.C. and he was directed to appear before the Metropolitan Magistrate. He failed to appear in that court and consequently a non-bailable warrant was issued against him. In t!te meantime accused-respondent filed an application under Section 482 E of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 without impleading the appellant y who is father of deceased. The High Court kept the order of Metropolitan M&gistrate in abeyance. In his petition before the High Court the accused suppressed the fact that a charge sheet under Section 302 had been filed against him. The High Court issued notice to the appellant but in the meantime accused filed an application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. F No order was passed on this and a direction was issued to him to appear before the Metropolitan Magistrate and pray for bail in accordance with law. The Metropolitan Magistrate granted him bail even in a case under Section 302 IPC. The Revision Petition filed before the High Court was dismissed by a Single Judge. Hence this appeal. G Allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned order, the Court HELD : 1. Despite the involvement of important questions of law, the High Court failed in its obligation to adjudicate the pleas of law raised ~ before it and dismissed the petition of the appellant by a one sentence H order. The orders of the Magistrate as also of the High Court being 684 P.S. BHATI v. N.C.T., DELHI 685 contrary to law are set aside. [ 690-E] A .t.. 2. Powers of the Magistrate, while dealing with the applications for grant of bail, are regulated by the punishment prescribed for the offence in which the bail is sought. Generally speaking if punishment prescribed is for imprisonment for life and death penalty and the offence is exclusively tri· B able by the Court of Sessions, Magistrate has no jurisdiction to grant bail unless the matter is covered by the provisos attached to Section 437 of the ~ Code. The limitations circumscribing the jurisdiction of the Magistrate are evident and apparent. Assumption of jurisdiction to entertain the applica· tion is distinguishable from the exercise of the jurisdiction. [689-C-D] 3. In cases where the offence is punishable with death or imprison· c men! for life which is triable exclusively by a Court of Sessions, the Magis· !rate may, in his wisdom, refrain to exercise the powers of granting the bail " and refer the accused to approach the higher courts unless he is fully satisfied that there is no reasonable ground for believing that the accused has been guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for D life. [690-F-G) 4. Even though there is no legal bar for a Magistrate to consider an application for grant of bail to a person who is arrested for an offence exclu· siyely triable by a Court of Sessions, yet it would be proper and appropriate E that in such a case the Magistrate directs the accused person to aproach the Court of Sessions for the purposes of getting the relief of bail. Even in a case where any Magistrate opts to make an adventure of exercising the powers under Section 437 of the Code in respect of a person who is, suspected of the commission of such an offence, arrested and detained in that connection, such Magistrate has to specifically negativate the existence of reasonable F ~ ground for believing that such accused is guilty of an offence punishable with sentence of death or imprisonment for life. In a case, where the Magis· trate has no occasion and in fact does not find, that there were no reasonable ground to believe that the accused had not committed the offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, he shall be deemed to be havingjuris· G diction to enlarge the accused on bail. [ 688-G-H; 689-A-B] • 5. In the instant c
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.