AFTAB AHMAD Vs. STATE OF U P
LAWS(ALL)-1990-3-45
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on March 18,1990

AFTAB AHMAD Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) SAKSENA and Chaubey, JJ. Heard.
(2.) THE First Information Report of Crime No. 17 of 1990 under Sec tions 363 and 366, Indian Penal Code, Police Station Jahanganj, District Farrukhabad, was read out before us. THE controversy in regard to age (whether Smt. Qamrunnisa was minor on relevnnt date, or had attained age of majority) cannot be determined in a petition under Article 226 of the Consti tution of India, it lies within the domain of Court in which the matter will come up finally, if a charge-sheet is submitted. THErefore, no case for quash ing the First Information Report of the said crime is made out. Further, the prayer that the arrest of the petitioner in the said crime be stayed, is also refused. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the courts below may take sufficient time for the disposal of bail application and, therefore, some direction be issued for expeditious disposal of bail application. The apprehension of the petitioners that the Magistrate is not empowered to grant bail in respect of an offence punishable under Section 366, Indian Penal Code is not well founded. Of late, it has been pointed out through a Division Bench decision [of this Court (Hon. Saksena, J.) was a member of that Bench] that the powers of the Magistrate in granting bail are not governed by the court which has jurisdiction to try the case ; rather are governed by the punishment prescribed for commission of the crime. A Magistrate has no jurisdiction to grant bail only in such where the prescribed punishment is imprisonment for life or death penalty. Under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code, punishment is that of 10 years. Therefore, the Magistrate is empowered to grant bail. Whatever material is placed before us by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the same be placed before the Magistrate, who would do well to consider the matter and dispose of bail applications of the petitioners. And, it need not be emphasised that the bail application be disposed of by the Magistrate, if possible, on the date on which it is presented. With these observations, the petition is disposed of accordingly.
(3.) A copy of the order may be given to the learned counsel on payment of usual charges. Order accordingly. .;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.