K. R. VYAS, J. ( 1 ) ). The State of Gujarat has filed the present revision Application challenging the order below exh. 7 dated 17-3-1986 passed in Criminal case No. 772 of 1985 by the Third Joint J. M. F. C. , surendranagar rejecting the said application and further directing to proceed further with the said case. ( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to the present case are as under: The respondent No. 1 has filed complaint dated 9-7-1985 in the Court of Chief Judicial magistrate, Surendranagar for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 342 r. w. Section. 114, IPC, against the present respondent Nos. 2 to 5 by inter alia alleging that in the night between 6-7-1985 and 7-7-1985, the respondent no. 4 with his staff raided the premises situated oppositevithal Press in Fodars Lane in Surendranagar and filed a false case under Gambling act against the complainant and other six persons and have illegally arrested them. It was further alleged that no Panchas were present and the Panchnama was prepared later on, and therefore, the complaint under Sections 4 to 5 of the gambling Act against the accused is false. Not only that but the father of the accused Chandrakanth seth and one Shri P. K. Mehta have gone to the Police Station for releasing these accused persons including the present respondent No. 1 on bail with necessary sureties and even though the offences charged were bailable offences they were not released on bail. The accused persons were thereafter produced before the Surendranagar City Police Station. At that lime also the father and relatives of the accused applied for bail which were not granted and accused were confined in the police custody from 11. 00 oclock night on 6-7-1985 to 11. 00 a. m. of 7-7-1985 when they were produced before the Magistrate and were released on bail. In substance, the respondent No. 1 and other five persons were illegally confined in the police custody for about 12 hours, and therefore, compalint was filed against the present respondent nos. 2 to 5. for the alleged offences under Sections 341, 342 r. w. Section. 114 of ihe Indian penal Code. ( 3 ) THE present respondents Nos. 2 to 5 gave an application Exh. 2 to 5. for the alleged offences under Sections 341, 342 r. w. Section. 114 of ihe Indian penal Code. ( 3 ) THE present respondents Nos. 2 to 5 gave an application Exh. 7 for terminating proceedings on the ground that the said complaint is filed without necessary sanction which is barred by the provisions of Section. 197 of the Criminal procedure Code read with the Notification of the government issued in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of Section 197 wherein it was directed that the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 197 shall apply to the police officers as defined by clause (ii) of the bombay Police Act, and therefore, the present complaint against them is ordered to be terminated. The learned Magistrate after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that no reasonable grounds are made out in the said application, and therefore, by his order dated 17-3-1986 rejected the said application. Hence, the present revision Application. ( 4 ) AT the outset, it may be stated that Section 197 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code prohibits court from taking cognizance of any offence alleged to have been committed by the persons to whom that section is made applicable. It is not in dispute that the State Government has issued notification in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of Section 197 of the Code and has directed that the proceedings of sub-sec. (2) of the said Section shall apply to the Police officer as defined by Clause (ii) of Section 2 of the Bombay Police Act. In view of this, the question that arises for my consideration is whether the respondent No. 1 (original complainant) is entitled to file Criminal Prosecution against the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 who are Police Officers for the alleged breach of Sections 341, 342 r. w. Section 114 of the IPC, and secondly for the alleged breach of the said sections whether the complainant and his associates are entitled to be released on bail by the police as a matter of right. The Supreme Court in Somchami v. Viguthi bhushan AIR 1965 p. 588 has held as under:"that the sanction of the appropriate authority for the respondents-prosecution was necessary under Section 197 of the Criminal procedure Code and that, therefore, the process issued against him without such sanction has to be quashed. The Supreme Court in Somchami v. Viguthi bhushan AIR 1965 p. 588 has held as under:"that the sanction of the appropriate authority for the respondents-prosecution was necessary under Section 197 of the Criminal procedure Code and that, therefore, the process issued against him without such sanction has to be quashed. Whether a person charged with offence, should or should not be released on bail was a matter within the discretion of the respondent and if while exercising discretion he acted illegally by saying that bail would not be granted unless the appellant did something which the appellant was not bound to do, the respondents cannot be said to have acted otherwise than in his capacity as a public servant. "in view of this, it is clear that the respondent no. 1 was required to obtain sanction of the appropriate authority for the prosecution of the police Officers, namely, the respondents Nos. 2 to 5. Having failed to obutain such a sanction, the proceedings initiated against the respondents Nos. 2 to 5 are on the face of it illegal and bad. Merely because respondents Nos. 2 to 5 did not release the respondent No. 1 and his associates even though the alleged offence was a bailable one that may be termed as an illegality, but it cannot be said that the said act on the part of the respondents nos. 2 to 5 was without authority of law. Whether to grant bail in the bailable offence by the concerned authority is solely a question of discretion. In that view of the mailer, proceedings initiated by respondent No. 1 being Criminal case No. 722 of 1985 now pending before the learned J. M. F. C. , Surendranagar is required to be quashed and set aside. ( 5 ) IN the result, the present Revision Application is allowed. The order dated 17-3-1986 passed by the learned J. M. F. C. , Surendranagar, below exh. 7 in Criminal Case No. 772 of 1985 is hereby set aside. Rule is made absolute accordingly. .