குற்றவியல் நடுவர், மரண தண்டனை அல்லது ஆயுள் தண்டனை விதிக்கும் செஷன்ஸ் நீதிமன்ற குற்றங்கள் தவிர மற்ற குற்றங்களுக்கு, எதிரிகளுக்கு பிணை தர தடை இல்லை என்று தீர்ப்பு.When Magistrate can release accused on bail in session triable cases?

குற்றவியல் நடுவர், மரண தண்டனை அல்லது ஆயுள் தண்டனை விதிக்கும் செஷன்ஸ் நீதிமன்ற குற்றங்கள் தவிர மற்ற குற்றங்களுக்கு, எதிரிகளுக்கு பிணை தர தடை இல்லை என்று தீர்ப்பு.When Magistrate can release accused on bail in session triable cases?

 We are fortified in the above view by the decision of the Kerala High Court and the Allahabad High Court which are relied upon by the learned advocate for the Petitioner. In fact the decision of the Kerala High Court is directly in relation to the offence under the said Act. In the case of Shanu (supra) the learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court after taking note of the provision of the said Act as well as Section 437 of Code held that "it is clear that the J.F.C.M.'s Court has got jurisdiction to grant bail to the persons accused of the offence punishable under any of the sub-cls. (i) to (xv) of sub-s. (1) of S. 3 of the Act." While delivering the said decision the learned Single Judge after taking note of Section 437 of Criminal Procedure Code has observed that "the Magistrate is competent to release an accused, either appeared or brought before him, if the offence alleged is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life." Similarly in Ram Bharoshi's case (supra) the learned Single Judge of Allahabad High Court held that " it is abundantly clear that there is no prohibition on a Magistrate to grant bail in a Sessions triable case, unless it is punishable with death or imprisonment for life, and it is absolutely necessary that the Magistrate give up the erroneous practice of refusing to consider or grant bails in such cases where there is no prohibition under the Code of Criminal Procedure." While delivering the said Judgment it was observed thus "13. There are a number of offences in the Penal code which are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, but they are triable by the Court of Sessions, where the Magistrates invariably refuse bail, because they entertain a wrong notion that they are disentitled to grant bails in such cases, even if the case is one where bail ought to have been granted on merits. this approach is also in the teeth of a Division Bench decision of this Court, Vijay Kumar and ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors.

 The result of this unhealthy practice is that a person against whom an FIR is lodged relating to any Sessions triable offence, which on a plain reading appears to be a case of false or malicious prosecution, uncorroborated by any independent material, the accused is left at the mercy of the police, in whose favour the Magistrate has virtually abdicated his jurisdiction. An accused may have to remain in jail for some time before his bail application is heard and granted by the Sessions Court, after the Magistrate's routine rejection of his prayer for bail even in those minor Sessions triable offences where there may be no need for taking an accused in custody for the purpose of investigation, or where palpably he appears to have been implicated falsely, and there are no other attendant circumstances disentitling the accused from an order of bail. 

Bombay High Court

Mr. Sanjay Narhar Malshe vs State Of Maharashtra on 29 March, 2005

Equivalent citations: 2005 CriLJ 2984

Bench: R Khandeparkar, P Kakade... Courtesy... Sachin Pani advocate