ORDER R.D. Shukla, J. -- 1. This application under section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed against the order dated 28.10.1991 of Shri A.K. Patel, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gadarwara, whereby the accused non-applicants have been granted bail- allegedly in cases triable by the Court of Session. During arguments, counsel for the State also supported the application for cancellation of bail. 2. The brief history of the case in that, on the report of applicant Munnihai, Crime No. 144/91, under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 307, 325, 354 and 506-B of the I.P.C. was registered against these non-applicants. The incident is said to have taken place of 26.10.1991 at 8.00 A.M., in village Moregaon. Munnihai, Ramlal and Radheshyam received injuries in that incident. Ramlal was admitted in the hospital for treatment. X- ray examination of his injuries was also done by which fracture of right tibia hone was found. Injured Radheshyam and Munnibai received simply injuries. Learned Magistrate, while passing the order, has observed that section 307 of I.P.C. has subsequently been added. From perusal of the police-ease-diary, he further found that the alleged grievous injuries had been caused by hard and blunt object, and there is no case of attempt to commit murder, or a case of causing grievous injuries by dangerous weapons. As such, the learned Magistrate has, holding it to be a case under section 147, 148, 149, 324, 325 and 506-B of I.P.C., granted bail to the accused persons. Hence, this application for cancellation of bail. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants has contended that the case clearly falls under section 307 of the I.P.C. - as Ramlal received many injuries including incised wounds, punctured wounds, contusions resulting in fracture of tibia bone and injuries on thigh. His dying declaration was also recorded. It has further been submitted that the learned Magistrate committed an error by appreciating evidence and since there is prima facie case punishable under section 307 of I.P.C., he ought not to have shown indulgence by granting bail to the accused persons. As against it, learned counsel for the accused non- applicants have submitted, that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the accused persons have committed an offence punishable under section 307 of I.P.C. and, therefore, learned Magistrate was justified in granting bail. 4. As against it, learned counsel for the accused non- applicants have submitted, that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the accused persons have committed an offence punishable under section 307 of I.P.C. and, therefore, learned Magistrate was justified in granting bail. 4. On perusal of record, it appears that though Munnibai received four simple injuries, but Ramlal sustained nearly 11 injuries, out of these, 3 injuries were incised wounds, i.e., (1) on the anterior middle aspect of parietal bone, (ii) at the root of left toe and (iii) at the anterior aspect of upper right leg. Injury No.5 (B) was a punctured wound. There was fracture of right tibia and fibula as well. The Doctor, who examined these injuries, has not mentioned as to what type of injury was on the upper right leg which resulted in fracture of right tibia and fibula. However, the Doctor, who operated, found two repaired wounds on the scalp and one incised stab wound on second rib (right side) of Ramlal. Fracture in leg was found in-between the two incised wounds and nearly whole area between the two incised wounds was injured. Thus, there were grievous injuries on the body of Ramlal caused by dangerous weapons like axe, spear and other cutting weapons. It appears that condition of Ramlal was serious and, therefore, his dying declaration was also recorded. Under these circumstances, even if section 307 of the I.P.C. was not mentioned, but, on a plain reading of the police-case-diary, there was sufficient ground to show that the grievous injuries by dangerous weapon has been caused and, therefore, the case would be covered under section 326 of the I.P.C. 5. There cannot be any hard and fast rule in the matter of granting or refusing bail with reference to the offences under which the crime is registered. The case of each accused has to be considered on its own merit. Though the sections under which the case is registred may have some bearing that cannot certainly be the dominant consideration. The Court's duty is to see as to what offence has been committed. However, while doing so, the Court is not required to appreciate and evaluate the evidence. Though the sections under which the case is registred may have some bearing that cannot certainly be the dominant consideration. The Court's duty is to see as to what offence has been committed. However, while doing so, the Court is not required to appreciate and evaluate the evidence. The Judicial Magistrates, while granting bail, are also required to peruse the police-case- diary and to see as to what offence is made out, but, while doing so, they are neither required to scrutinise the evidence, nor required to evaluate it. They are required to see, only on plain reading of evidence collected, as to what offence is made out. It appears that, in this case, learned Magistrate has tried to evaluate the evidence. It may also be observed here that a Magistrate has no power to grant bail in a case of offence which is punishable with imprisonment for life. There is a very thin distinction between an offence under section 307 and offence under section 326 of I.P.X.. Sometimes, one overlaps the other. The intention of the accused persons shall be inferred not only from the nature of injuries, but by so many other circumstances - including what they proclaimed at the time of incident and their preparation for the incident. It would not be proper for this Court to scrutinise the evidence and find out as to whether. the accused persons intended to kill Ramlal or they proclaimed to do sb and, what were the intervening circumstances, that they could not carry out their intention. It would be done on scrutiny of evidence after trial, suffice to say, there is at least a case under section 326 of the I.P.C, which is punishable with imprisonment for life and, therefore, the learned Magistrate has no power to release the accused persons on bail. During the course of arguments, it was submitted that the accused persons have not misused their bail and, therefore, the learned Magistrate has no power to release the accused persons on hail. During the course of arguments, it was submitted that the accused persons have not misused their bail and, therefore, even if it is held that the order of the Magistrate is without jurisdiction, they may be granted bail by this Court. During the course of arguments, it was submitted that the accused persons have not misused their bail and, therefore, even if it is held that the order of the Magistrate is without jurisdiction, they may be granted bail by this Court. It appears that the accused persons have been released, vide order dated 28.10.1991, and no specific allegation of misuse of bail has been made and, therefore, even if it is held that the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to grant bail, and the accused persons, who were not armed with deadly weapons and are directly not responsible for causing grievous injuries by dangerous weapons, are entitled to be released on bail, as the trial of the case is likely to take sometime. 6. As a result, application under section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is accepted. It is held that the learned Magistrate has erred in granting bail of which he had no jurisdiction, and, therefore, order dated 28.10.1991, so far as grant of bail is concerned, is set aside. However, on a plain reading of the first information report, it would be clear that Nandkishore was armed with an axe, and Mohan Lodhi was armed with a spear, and it also appears that it is they, who caused grievous injuries to Ramlal. It is, therefore, directed that the accused-non-applicants shall surrender before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gadarwara, on 14.2.1992. On their doing so, accused-non- applicants Chhabile, Shrilal, Ganesh, Ramesh and Gaya Prasad, shall be released on their furnishing fresh bail-bonds in a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) each, with one surety each "in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gadarwara, for their appearance before that Court or any other Court, as may be directed. Bail applications of accused Nandkishore and Mohan Lodhi are rejected. They shall be taken into custody on their surrendering so. In case, the accused-non-applicants, viz., Mohan, Nandkishore, Chhabile, Shrilal, Ganesh, Ramesh and Gaya Prasad, do not surrender on the date referred above, they shall be summoned by warrant of arrest and shall not he released on bail; and the learned Magistrate shall he free to take action for forfeiture of bail-bonds and surety-bonds, if they fail to surrender as directed above.