- (1.) HEARD.
(2.) NO case for quashing the first information report of crime NO. 163 of 1989, under sections 147, 148, 149 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, police station Manda, District Allahabad is made out. Co-accused of the said crime, per statement of Sri S. P. Singh, Advocate, have already been admitted to bail by the Sessions Judge, Allahabad on the 12th and 13th of February, 1990. Sri S. P. Singh, Advocate, further submits that no injury was caused to any person. These submissions be made before the court competent to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The courts will, however, do well to dispose of application for bail, if possible, on the date on which it is filed. Yet another apprehension of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that because the case is triable by court of Session, the Magistrate concerned will reject bail application by making an observation accordingly. Of late, it has been emphasised by this Court that the powers of Magistrate while dealing with bail application are not governed by the court competent to try the case, but are regulated by the punishment prescribed for an offence. It has been accordingly held that if the punishment prescribed is that of imprisonment for life or death penalty, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to grant bail unless the matter is covered by the proviso attached to section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner about which a reference is found in para 2 of this order, do prima-facie, confer jurisdiction on Magistrate for finally disposing of bail application.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner drew our attention towards the observations made by this Court in Civil Misc Writ Petition No. Nil of 1989, decided on the 17th of October, 1989 Mahendra Pal Singh v. State of U. P., 1989 ACrR 770 and also in Civil Misc. Writ Petition i\o 20624 of 1989, decided on the 3rd of November, 1989 Jhansi Concrete Products, Jhansi v. State of UP, 1990 ACrR 31 and prayed that a direction be given to the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge to release the petitioner on his furnishing a personal bond, if bail application is not disposed of 'on the date on which it is presented. We do not agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that a principle of law has been laid down after interpreting some statutory provision in those decisions for being universally applied. We do not agree that the facts of the instant case call for a direction to that effect. \Ve would further like to observe that the observations made in the reported cases (supra) do not need any scrutiny by a Larger Bench. The petition is disposed of accordingly.;