- (1.) PALOK Basil, J. Anil Kumar Ashish Kumar are named as accused in a first information report giving rise to case crime No. 110 of 1991 under Section 307, I. P. C. , P. S. Saurikh, district Farrukhabad. It appears that they made an application for bail before the Magistrate, Chhibramau who has passed a curious order which is quoted below as it is written in Annexure II: "heard and seen the remand papers. I have also seen the report of the A. P. O. Remand of accused is granted for offence punishable under Section 324, I. P. C. This offence is bailable. Let accused be released on bail on executing personal bond for Rs. 4,000 with two sureties in like amounts to each accused. Sd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-5-1991. "
(2.) SRI Dilip Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants has argued in support of this application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. that a direction be issued to the court below to accept the applicants' bonds relating to Sec tion 307, I. P. C. without compelling them to surrender and seeding to jail. In support of the said argument reliance has been placed on the case of Indrapal Singh v. State, 1988 ACC 565: 1988 JIC 165. In the cited case an offence was initially registered about a lesser offence and it was converted by the Investigat ing Officer into a graver offence. Thus the applicability of the aforesaid autho rity is out of question in the present case. In the instant case the crime was registered under Section 307, I. P. C. and not under Section 324, I. P. C. It is unimaginable that the Magistrate while granting remand to the accused arrested for an offence under Section 307, I. P. C. could grant remand only under Section 324, I. P. C. and relying upon his own wisdom grant them bail. If this action is upheld, it will be setting a very bad precedent inasmuch as this would permit by passing the whole process of law of bail. Sri Dilip Kumar has argued that since there is an observation in the Magistrate order that he has seen the report of the A. P. O. as also the remand papers and therefore, he could determine judicially even at the remand stage whether a case for remand of accused under Section 307, I. P. C. was made out or not. This argument is incorrect. At the time of granting remand, the F. I. R. and other papers that may have been forwarded such as injury report etc. , those papers only have to be seen. If the Magistrates are held to have the power to remand the accused for an assumed lesser offence the purpose of granting remand would vanish inasmuch as the distinction of bailable and non-bailable offences end cases where the Magistrates could or could not grant bail as delirealed in Cr. P. C. would also vanish. This would lead to a gradual judicial anarchy obtainable through lawful means. Such an attempt must be resisted at the outset. Therefor, the action of the Magistrate in this case granting remand under Section 314, I. P. C. when the case was sent up by police under Section 307, I. P. C. was wholly illegal and unjustified, if not reckless.
(3.) IN view of the aforesaid discussion this application is dismissed. Let the file and this order be placed before the Hon'ble Administrative Judge con cerned within three days. Application dismissed. .;