Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 738 (MP)

Rajju v. State of M. P.

2000-07-31

R.S.GARG

body2000
Short Note From the order passed by the learned Court below, it appears that the applicants have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 81/2000 registered at Police Station Badam Alhera for offences punishable under section 147, 148, 341, 294, 323, 324, 325 and 506-II, IPC. From the order it also appears that on the date when the application was rejected the applicants remained in jail for almost about 20 days. The learned Court below has rejected the application mainly on the ground that three earlier applications were already rejected and as there was no new ground the application under consideration could not be allowed. Barring section 506-II, IPC all other sections are bailable. It is most unfortunate that for a charge punishable under section 506-II, IPC the learned Sessions Judge has rejected the bail application on the ground that changed circumstances were wanting in the case. Let learned Sessions Judge be reminded the provisions of law that if a particular offence is bailable then it should not affect the jurisdiction of the Court nor would be taken into consideration for rejecting the bail application in relation to some other minor offence which under the law is non-bailable. It appears that the rejection of the application was prompted because of addition of charges punishable under sections 323, 324 and 325 IPC. A Court is required to see that if a charge under section 506-II IPC is not levelled then a police officer would be authorized to release the man on bail. The Court obviously has a larger and better jurisdiction then a police officer. From the order passed by the Court below, it does not appear as to what are the special circumstances for which the applicants were not released on bail in relation to offence punishable under section 506-II IPC. It is expected of every Court, while deciding an application that it shall not reject the application without giving the summary of the facts. While disposing of the matter, a Court is bound to mention the Crime No. the Police Station at which said Crime is registered and the offences for which the police has taken cognizance. It is expected of every Court, while deciding an application that it shall not reject the application without giving the summary of the facts. While disposing of the matter, a Court is bound to mention the Crime No. the Police Station at which said Crime is registered and the offences for which the police has taken cognizance. It is also expected of a Court that instead of writing only few words like the case is not fit for bail, or the applicants do not deserve bail or the facts and the circumstance considered, case is not fit for bail or so. It is expected of all Courts to give summary of facts on strength of which the prosecution levels charges and persuades a Court to grant or reject the bail application. Taking into consideration that barring section 506-II IPC all other offences are bailable and the applicants appear to be in jail for last more than one month, I consider present to be a fit case for admitting each of the applicant to bail. On applicants furnishing a personal bond in sum of Rs. 5,000/- each with one surety in the like amount each to the satisfaction of CJM, Chhatarpur, they be immediately released for their appearance before the said Court/trial Court and/or as and where so directed. Copy of this order be sent to S.J. Chhatarpur. C.C. of the order must be supplied today itself.