Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2220 (ALL)

Rahul @ Satish Chandra Dubey v. State of U. P.

2016-06-21

ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA

body2016
JUDGMENT Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Petitioners were arrested in Case Crime No.22 of 2016, under sections 279, 337, 338 and 427 I.P.C. All such sections are bailable and pursuant to the order of bail granted on 19.2.2016, petitioners were released upon furnishing bail bonds. Subsequently, pursuant to further investigation carried out in the matter, section 307 I.P.C. has also been added. Petitioners accordingly moved an application before the court of Magistrate with the contention that on the existing bail bonds, they be released without their surrendering before the court and furnishing fresh bail bonds. The court of Magistrate vide order dated 10.4.2016 has rejected the application by observing that in view of the law laid down in Bijendra vs. State of U.P., (2006) 53 ACC 391, applicants were required to have surrendered and only thereafter their bail application could be considered. This order of the Magistrate has been challenged by way of revision, which has been rejected vide order under challenge dated 10.6.2016. Thus aggrieved, petitioners have invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court in Lalmani vs. State of U.P., 2001 JIC (1) 463, in support of his contention. 3. This petition is opposed by learned A.G.A., who contends that the prayer made by the petitioners is not liable to be considered, inasmuch as the bail granted to them was in respect of the offences, all of which are bailable, and once non bailable section is added it is incumbent upon the petitioners to surrender and furnish fresh bail bonds. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 5. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners is based upon the consent of the learned A.G.A. and was not based upon principles of law laid down therein. In such view of the matter, not much reliance can be pressed upon the judgment in Lalmani (supra). This Court finds substance in the argument advanced by learned A.G.A. inasmuch as petitioners have been bailed out in offences, all of which were bailable, previously, and once pursuant to further investigation held section 307 I.P.C. had been added, it would be incumbent upon the petitioners to seek bail after surrendering before the court. This Court finds substance in the argument advanced by learned A.G.A. inasmuch as petitioners have been bailed out in offences, all of which were bailable, previously, and once pursuant to further investigation held section 307 I.P.C. had been added, it would be incumbent upon the petitioners to seek bail after surrendering before the court. This Court finds no error of jurisdiction in the orders passed by the Magistrate, as affirmed in revision, which may require any interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This petition consequently fails and is dismissed.