Kant Tripathi, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned AGA for the Respondent and perused the record.
(2.) THIS is a petition under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the judgment and order dated 7.1.2011 rendered by the Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar in Criminal Revision No. 332 of 2010, Sanjeeva v. State of U.P. It appears that the applicant is an accused in case crime No. 210 of 2001, under Sections 147, 148, 353, 336, 427, IPC and Section 7, Criminal Laws Amendment Act, P.S. Bithoor, District Kanpur Nagar and the matter is pending in the Court of the Magistrate. The applicant appeared before the Magistrate and moved an application for providing him copies of the relevant documents specified in Section 207, Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Magistrate was of the view that the applicant had neither appeared nor granted bail, therefore, there was no question of furnishing the desired documents. The applicant moved another application under Section 88, Code of Criminal Procedure and requested that he may be permitted to furnish personal bond and bail bonds as provided in Section 88, Code of Criminal Procedure. The Petitioner's application under Section 88, Code of Criminal Procedure was also rejected. Thereafter, the Petitioner preferred aforesaid criminal revision before the Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar who considered the submissions made on behalf of the Petitioner in detail and arrived at the conclusion that the Petitioner was to seek bail in terms of Section 437, Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Sessions Judge passed the impugned order keeping in view the principles laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Vinod Narain v. U.P. State, 1995 ACC 375.
(3.) ACCORDING to Section 9 of the Criminal Laws Amendment Act, 1932 the offence under Section 7 of the Criminal Laws Amendment Act, 1932 is non -boilable, therefore, the provisions of Section 437, Code of Criminal Procedure are attracted in this case. As such the provisions of Section 88, Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be read in isolation in favor of the accused excluding the provisions of Section 437, Code of Criminal Procedure. In Para 24 of the judgment rendered by the Full Bench, the following observations have been made: The provisions of Section 88 of the Code empowers the Court to take bond for appearance. Giving reference of this provision, it is contended that under this provision a person who appears before the Court, can be released on his personal bond. However, this provision will have no application to the facts of the present case as it applies only to a person who is present in the Court as witness etc. If a person appears in the Court for the purpose of bail in accordance with the provisions of Section 437(1) of the Code and surrenders, then he becomes an accused and this provision does not apply to an accused.;