Whether in each and every case triable by the Court of Session the accused shall be arrested and released on bail. ? = There is no requirement in law that in each and every case triable by the Court of Session the accused shall be arrested and released on bail. When only summons were issued to the accused to secure his attendance after the charge sheet is filed in a case triable by Court of Session the accused shall not be compelled to approach the Sessions Court/Special Court and to obtain bail. In every case triable by Court of Session unless the accused is arrested and is in judicial custody,, the question of his obtaining bail from the Sessions Court does not enough while committing the case it is enough on the part of the committing Magistrate to bind over the accused with or without sureties undertaking to appear before the Sessions Court till the conclusion of the trial.


THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO      
Criminal Petition No.9099 of 2010

17-09-2010

Guddanti Narasimha Rao

The State of A.P. and another

Counsel for the Appellants: Mr. P.Ragendra Reddy

Counsel for the Respondent :  Public Prosecutor

:ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to issue a
direction to the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chirala,
Prakasham District not to insist the petitioner to obtain bail at the time of
committing P.R.C.No.26 of 2010 to the Court of Sessions.

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned
Public Prosecutor representing the State.

On a report lodged by the second respondent-complainant the police registered a
case under Section 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC and ST (POA) Act,
investigated into and filed a final report stating that the case is false.
Subsequently, in protest the second respondent filed a petition and the learned
Magistrate after recording sworn statement of the second respondent, took
cognizance of the case against the petitioner under Section 3(1)(x) of SC and ST
(POA) Act, 1989.
Since the offence is triable by the Special Court for the trial of offences
under prevention of atrocities Act, it has to be committed by the magistrate to
the said Court.  It is submitted by the learned counsel representing the
petitioner that at the time of committing the case, the learned Magistrate is
insisting upon the petitioner to obtain order of bail from the Special Court, or
any other competent court as the case may be, and therefore, the petitioner
filed the present criminal petition to issue the required direction to the
learned Magistrate.
It can be understood from Section 209 Cr.P.C. that when the Court directly
issues summons to the accused to secure his attendance and in obedience thereto,
the accused attends before the magistrate, the magistrate while committing case
to the Court of Session can bind him over to the Sessions Court on his executing
a bond, as provided under Section 441 Cr.P.C. Obtaining bail is not a
requirement as per Section 209 Cr.P.C.  Further, there is no provision under
prevention of atrocities act for granting anticipatory bail.
From the language of Section 209 Cr.P.C., it does not appear that at the time of
committing the case to the Court of Session, he must be on bail by the Sessions
Court.
        Section 209 Cr.P.C. lays down that when it appears to the Magistrate that
the offence is exclusively triable by Court of Session, he shall
a) commit, after complying with the provisions of Section 207 or 208, as the
case may be, the case to the Court of Session, and subject to the provisions of
this code relating to bail, remand the accused to custody until such commitment
has been made;
b) subject to the provisions of this Code, relating to bail, remand the accused
to custody during; and until the conclusion of, the trial;

The expression subject to the provisions of this code relating to bail can only
be understood to mean subject to the provisions in Chapter 33 of the Code.

When the accused appeared before the Court on receiving summons from the Court
issued after registering the PRC, and undertakes himself to appear before the
Magistrate during the committed proceeding and also to appear before the Court
of Session/Special Court and the accused not being arrested and released on bail
earlier in connection with said case, need not be driven to obtain bail from the
Court of Sessions/Special Court.  Section 441(3) Cr.P.C. lays down, if the case
so requires the bond shall also bind the person released on bail to appear when
called upon the High Court or Court of Session or other court to answer the
charge.

There is no requirement in law that in each and every case triable by the Court
of Session the accused shall be arrested and released on bail.  When only
summons were issued to the accused to secure his attendance after the charge
sheet is filed in a case triable by Court of Session the accused shall not be
compelled to approach the Sessions Court/Special Court and to obtain bail.  In
every case triable by Court of Session unless the accused is arrested and is in
judicial custody,, the question of his obtaining bail from the Sessions Court
does not enough while committing the case it is enough on the part of the
committing Magistrate to bind over the accused with or without sureties
undertaking to appear before the Sessions Court till the conclusion of the
trial.

Therefore, this Court agrees with the submission made by the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner and the learned Magistrate is hereby directed not
to insist the petitioner to obtain bail from the Court concerned for the purpose
of commitment of P.R.C. to the Special Court or Court of Sessions and the
Magistrate can commit the case by obtaining personal bond from him to appear
before the Special Court ensuring his attendance before the said Court till the
conclusion of the trial.
The criminal petition is accordingly allowed.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.

cancellation of the sale deeds = Under the Registration Act, 1908 and the Rules framed thereunder, which provide that registration/cancellation of document is only with reference to the executant and the claimant under a document, which is already registered. Petitioner, being a third party, is, therefore, not entitled to approach the registering authority and seek cancellation of the documents executed by third party in favour of any other party. Petitioner’s reliance upon Rule 26 of the Rules framed under the Registration Act is also misconceived inasmuch as Rule 26(k)(i) of the Rules specifically refer to the duty of the registering authority to ensure that the deed of cancellation is executed by all the executants and the claimants, who are parties to previously registered document and only on mutual consent a deed of cancellation can be registered. Since petitioner is not a party to the impugned sale transactions between two different individuals, he is not entitled to seek cancellation thereof and in any case, the petitioner does not satisfy even the requirement of Rule 26, referred to above.