ORDER Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. Invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant has filed this application for grant of regular bail stating inter alia that he has been arrested on 5-4-2015 in connection with Crime No. 70/2015, registered at Police Station, Kusmunda District Korba (Chhattisgarh), for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 12 of Chhattisgarh Rajya Upcharyagriha Tatha Rogopchar Sambandhi Sthapanaye Anugyapan Adhiniyam, 2010 (henceforth "Adhiniyam, 2010"). Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, the applicant (Doctor) having a medical degree of BAMS was found practicing in Allopathy system of medicine and running Clinical Establishment/Nursing Home without having valid license under the Adhiniyam, 2010, which is an offence punishable under Section 3 read with Section 12 of the Adhiniyam, 2010 and thereby committed aforesaid offence. 2. Mr. Vipin Tiwari, learned Counsel for the applicant would submit that applicant is qualified medical practitioner having degree of Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine & Surgery and duly registered with Chhattisgarh Ayurvedic Tatha Unani Paddhati Avam Prakritik Chikitsa Board, Raipur being registration No. CG-00971/Ayurved and his application for registration under the Adhiniyam, 2010 is pending consideration before the Competent Authority and as such, applicant has been arrested on 5-4-2015 and charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant only for offence punishable under Section 3 read with Section 12 of the Adhiniyam, 2010. He would further submit that punishment prescribed for commission of aforesaid offence is only fine of ` 20,000/- and he has no criminal antecedent and as such, offences are bailable and officer arresting the applicant, the Trial Magistrate as well as learned Sessions Judge have committed grave legal error in rejecting his application for grant of bail in the bailable offence as in such offence bail is a matter of right leaving no discretion with them to deny bail and denial of bail to the applicant in a bailable offence is absolutely illegal as he is ready and willing to furnish bail bonds as and when directed, as such application for bail be allowed and he be released on bail. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Arvind Dubey, learned Panel Lawyer for the non-applicant/State would oppose the bail application. 4. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary of Crime No. 70/2015, Police Station, Kusmunda District Korba with utmost circumspection. 5. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Arvind Dubey, learned Panel Lawyer for the non-applicant/State would oppose the bail application. 4. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary of Crime No. 70/2015, Police Station, Kusmunda District Korba with utmost circumspection. 5. At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice, relevant provisions contained in Adhiniyam, 2010 and Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:-- "4. Penalty for failure to obtain licence.-Whoever runs a nursing home or a clinical establishment as defined in this Act without obtaining a licence shall be punishable with a fine of ` 20,000. *** *** *** 12. Penalties and Fine.--(A)(1) Whoever contravenes the provision made with regard to licensing under this Act or any rules made thereunder, shall be punishable with a fine of ` 20,000. (2) If a nursing home or a clinical establishment does not fulfil the eligibility norms as prescribed in this Act or rules made thereunder, it shall be punishable with a fine of ` 20,000. (3) If a nursing home or a clinical establishment fails to submit records or information, which are lawfully required to be submitted under this Act or rules made thereunder, it shall be punishable with a fine of ` 5000, for each offence. (B) Conviction for offence under this Act.--If a nursing home or a clinical establishment commits an offence under Section 12(A), shall be punishable with prescribed fine only for the first offence : Provided further that, if a nursing home or a clinical establishment is convicted of an offence under Section 12(A) for the second time, it shall be liable for the imprisonment up to three yeas, or with fine of `50,000, or with both." 6. In order to ascertain, the nature of offence, it is proper to look into the First Schedule appended to Code of Criminal Procedure, which provides for classification of offences, which states as under:-- "The First Schedule Classification of Offences .................................................. II. Classification of offences against other laws offence Cognizable or non-cognizable Bailable or non-Bailable By what Court triable (1) (2) (3) (4) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** If Punishable with imprisonment for less than 3 years or with fine only Non-Cognizable Bailable Any Magistrate 7. II. Classification of offences against other laws offence Cognizable or non-cognizable Bailable or non-Bailable By what Court triable (1) (2) (3) (4) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** If Punishable with imprisonment for less than 3 years or with fine only Non-Cognizable Bailable Any Magistrate 7. A careful reading of the above extracted classification appended to First Schedule would show, if offence committed by the accused person is punishable with imprisonment for less than three years or punishable with fine only, then the offence would be triable by Magistrate and it would be bailable and non-cognizable offence. 8. In a decision reported in Om Prakash and another v. Union of India and another: (2011)14 SCC 01, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have clearly held that if the offence is punishable imprisonment for less than three years or with fine only, such offence would be bailable and held as under:-- "38. The expression 'bailable offence' has been defined in Section2(a) of the Code and set out hereinabove in Paragraph 3 of the judgment, to mean an offence, which is either shown to be bailable in the First Schedule to the Code or which is made bailable by any other law for the time being in force. As noticed earlier, the First Schedule to the Code consists of Part 1 and Part 2. While Part 1 deals with offences under the Indian Penal Code, Part 2 deals with offences under other laws. Accordingly, if the provisions of Part 2 of the First Schedule are to be applied, an offence in order to be cognizable and bailable would have to be an offence, which is punishable with imprisonment for less than three years or with fine only, being the third item under the category of offences indicated in the said Part. An offence punishable with imprisonment for three years and upwards, but not more than seven years, has been shown to be cognizable and non-bailable......" 9. The grant of bail to a person accused of bailable offence is provided and governed by Section 436 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:-- "436. In what cases bail to be taken.--(1) When any person other than a person accused of a non-bailable offence is arrested or detained without warrant by an officer-in-charge of a police station. The grant of bail to a person accused of bailable offence is provided and governed by Section 436 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:-- "436. In what cases bail to be taken.--(1) When any person other than a person accused of a non-bailable offence is arrested or detained without warrant by an officer-in-charge of a police station. Or appears or is brought before a Court, and is prepared at any time while in the custody of such officer or at any stage of the proceeding before such Court to give bail, such person shall be released on bail: Provided that such officer or Court, if he or it thinks fit, may and shall, if such person is indigent and is unable to furnish surety, instead of taking bail from such person, discharge him on his executing a bond without sureties for his appearance as hereinafter provided : Explanation:--Where a person is unable to give bail within a week of the date of his arrest, it shall be a sufficient ground for the officer or the Court to presume that he is an indigent person for the purposes of this proviso. Provided further that nothing in this section shall be deemed to affect the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 116 or Section 446-A. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where a person has failed to comply with the conditions of the bail-bond as regards the time and place of attendance, the Court may refuse to release him on bail, when on a subsequent occasion in the same case he appears before the Court or is brought in custody and any such refusal shall be without prejudice to the powers of the Court to call upon any person bound by such bond to pay the penalty thereof under Section 446." Thus, by virtue of provisions contained in Section 436 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a person accused of bailable offence is entitled to be released on bail, if is prepared to give bail when appears or is brought before the Court and the police officer or the Court is duty bound to release him on bail on such unreasonable terms. 10. 10. In the matter of State of Gujarat and another v. Lalsingh Kishan Singh, AIR 1981 SC 368 , the question for consideration before the Supreme Court was whether a person authorised by the Commissioner of Police to arrest a person, would such person has an authority to release the accused arrested by him if the offence is bailable. Before the Supreme Court, it was contended that as there were executive instructions such authorised person cannot release the accused on bail because he would have no authority, repelling the contention. The Supreme Court observed as under:-- "24. Once we hold that a Commissioner of Police, who is competent to direct by issuing special warrant or general order, under Section6(1)(i), another police officer of the requisite rank to arrest persons found gambling or present in a gaming house, can also arrest personally the offender concerned, the principle enunciated by this Court in Lala's case is immediately attracted in full force and there is no escape from the conclusion that offences under Sections 4 and 5of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act are cognizable. Such offences are admittedly bailable. It follows as a necessary corollary therefrom, that the Commissioner of Police or the police officer who is authorised by him to search, arrest and investigate such offences, is under a legal obligation to release the accused on bail under the provisions of Section 496 of the Code. The authority to grant bail to the person arrested in execution of such a warrant is derived by the officer arresting, from the statute and consequently, no executive instructions or administrative rules can abridge, or run counter to the statutory provisions of the Code. Since the impugned order 'or executive instructions are contrary to or inconsistent with the provisions of the Code and on a true construction, there is nothing in Section 6 or any other provision of the Act, which takes away the right and power conferred by the Code on the police officer to grant bail, to the person arrested by him for offences under Sections 4 and5 of the Act, the impugned order was ultra vires and bad in law and had been rightly quashed by the High Court." 11. The question as to whether a person accused of a bailable offence is entitled to grant bail as a matter of right stands authoritatively concluded by the decision of Supreme Court in case of Rasiklal v. Kishore S/o. Khanchand Wadhwani, 2009(4) M.P.H.T. 1 (SC) : (2009) 4 SCC 446 , in which it has been clearly held that in bailable offence, the right of accused to get bail is absolute and indefeasible right and the Courts have no discretion in granting bail, Their Lordships held as under:- "9.......There is no doubt that under Section 436 of the Code of Criminal Procedure a person accused of a bailable offence is entitled to be released on bail pending his trial. As soon as it appears that the accused person is prepared to give bail, the police officer or the Court before whom he offers to give bail, is bound to release him on such terms as to bail as may appear to the officer or the Court to be reasonable. It would even be open to the officer or the Court to discharge such person on his executing a bond as provided in the Section instead of taking bail from him." In the later part of said judgment, it has been further held that, the only choice available to the officer or the Court is as between taking a simple recognizance of the accused and demanding security with surety. The persons contemplated by Section 436 cannot be taken into custody unless they are unable or wiling to offer bail or to execute personal bonds. There is no manner of doubt that bail in a bailable offence can be claimed by accused as of right and the officer or the Court, as the case may be, is bound to release the accused on bail if he is willing to abide by reasonable conditions, which may be imposed on him. 12. There is no manner of doubt that bail in a bailable offence can be claimed by accused as of right and the officer or the Court, as the case may be, is bound to release the accused on bail if he is willing to abide by reasonable conditions, which may be imposed on him. 12. Thus, bearing in mind the principles of law laid down in aforesaid Rasiklal (supra), and also taking note of provisions contained in Section 436 of Cr.P.C., it is quite apparent that in bailable offence, the right of the accused person to bail is absolute and indefeasible right and the Courts have no discretion in granting bail and the accused is entitled for bail as a matter of right and the Court cannot refuse to grant bail provided that they are ready and willing to offer bail or to execute personal bonds. 13. After having examined the legal position with regard to grant of bail, in bailable offence, falling back to the facts of case and upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of case diary of Crime No. 70/2015, Police Station, Katghora, the following facts would emerge on the face of record:-- "(i) That, on 5-4-2015 offence under Section 420, IPC and Sections3, 12 of Adhiniyam, 2010 (wrongly mentioned as Section 3, 12, C.G. Nursing Act in the order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge) and Section 21 read with Section 24 of the Chhattisgarh Ayurvigyan Parishad Adhiniyam) were registered against the applicant. (ii) That, the applicant was arrested by Investigation Officer for the aforesaid offences on 5-4-2015. (iii) That, on 8-4-2015 applicant's application under Section 439, Cr.P.C. was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Katghora. (iv) That, on 13-4-2015, the charge-sheet was sought to be produced before the Jurisdictional Criminal Court/Judicial Magistrate, Katghora against the applicant only for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 12 of Adhiniyam, 2010. However, learned Judicial Magistrate did not accept the charge sheet and rejected the application for accepting the charge sheet with direction for further investigation and returned the charge sheet fixing matter for 17-4-2015. (v) That charge sheet was filed by State before the Judicial Magistrate, Pali on 17-4-2015 only for offence under Sections 3, 12of Adhiniyam, 2010 dropping the charges under Section 420 of the IPC and Section 21 read with Section 24 of the Chhattisgarh Ayurvigyan Parishad Adhiniyam. (v) That charge sheet was filed by State before the Judicial Magistrate, Pali on 17-4-2015 only for offence under Sections 3, 12of Adhiniyam, 2010 dropping the charges under Section 420 of the IPC and Section 21 read with Section 24 of the Chhattisgarh Ayurvigyan Parishad Adhiniyam. (vi) The applicant filed third bail application stating inter alia that the charge sheet has been filed against the applicant only under Section 3 read with Section 12 of Adhiniyam, 2010 and above offences are bailable, and therefore, he be released on bail. (vii) That, Additional Sessions Judge, Katghora by its order dated 23-4-2015 rejected on merits." 14. From the narration of the aforesaid facts, it is quite vivid that the Trial Magistrate as well as Court of Sessions rejected the bail application filed by appellant without taking into consideration that the offences allegedly committed by the applicant under Section3, read with Section 12 of the Adhiniyam, 2010 is bailable offence, punishable with fine only as Section 12-B of Act is not applicable and if the offence is bailable, bail has to be granted to the applicant/accused person as a matter of right. Section 436 of the Cr.P.C. is imperative and mandatory and bail application could not have been rejected by both the Courts, as such, the Trial Magistrate as well as Additional Sessions Judge, Katghora have committed grave legal error in not granting the bail to the applicant in such a bailable offence. Taking into consideration, the totality of the circumstances and provisions contained in Section 436 of the Cr.P.C. the application filed by the applicant deserves to be allowed. 15. Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is allowed. It is directed that the applicant namely Padum Lal Sahu shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of ` 25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court for appearance as and when directed. 16. It is directed that the applicant namely Padum Lal Sahu shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of ` 25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court for appearance as and when directed. 16. While parting with the matter, I am deeply distressed to note that Trial, Magistrate, Katghora/Pali as well as Additional Sessions Judge, Katghora have not been able to maintain fine balance between personal liberty of individual and societal interest while considering the application for grant of bail and rejected the application filed by applicant for bail in bailable offence in teeth of express provision contained in Section 436 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and binding judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Rasiklal (supra) and in consequence thereof applicant, who is Doctor by profession is in jail for more than a month in a bailable offence, which is punishable only with fine. Let the matter be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice in administrative side for considering the appropriate order/action against the Judicial Magistrate, Katghora/Pali and Additional Sessions Judge, Katghora. Urgent certified copy on usual charges.