- (1.) Aggrieved by the order of the learned II Additional District Judge, Agra adding the petitioners as accused persons in S.T. No. 714 of 2000 in exercise of power under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'the Code'), the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present petition.
(2.) Short facts as borne out from the materials on record are that Geeta Ram, respondent No. 2 lodged an FIR at Sadar P.S. Agra on the basis of which case crime No. 419 of 2000 under Sections 304B and 498-A, I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act was registered. The police after investigation laid charge sheet only against Khem Karan, husband of the Narayani Devi, the deceased . After commitment, the case was transferred to the Additional District Judge, Agra for disposal in accordance with law. In course of trial, the prosecution examined some witnesses who in their evidence implicated the petitioners in the alleged incident. In view of such evidence, the trial Judge in exercise of power conferred by Section 319 of the Code arraigned them as accused and directed for issuance of process for their appearance. Legality and correctness of this order was challenged in this Court in criminal revision No. 442 of 2001. Upon hearing, the Court allowed the revision and set aside the said order challenging which the informant approached the Supreme Court. It is admitted case of the parties that order of this Court was set aside and that of the learned trial Judge was restored. In the meanwhile, the aforesaid session trial was transferred to the Fast Track Court No. III who having gone through the order of this Court and the Supreme Court summoned the petitioners to face the trial. Without appearing before the trial Court, it is stated, the petitioners by engaging counsel requested to fix another date since someone died in their family. Having accepted the request, the court adjourned the trial to a future date with the observation that the petitioners may apply for bail. In view of such observation, the petitioners apprehended that on the date of appearance, they may be taken to custody and sent to jail. This apprehension necessitated them to file the present case seeking the relief as mentioned above. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that since the petitioners have been arrayed as accused by the trial Court in exercise of power under Section 319 of the Code, on their appearance the Court, instead of sending them to jail should release them on their executing bonds in terms of Section 88 of the Code. In other words, it is urged by the counsel that since the petitioners were not charge sheeted by the police to face the trial and it was the Court who added them as accused, they are not required to seek for release on bail and on their appearance in response to the summons it is incumbent upon the Court to accept bonds with or without sureties . In support of the aforesaid contention, reliance was placed on a decision of this Court in the case of Chandra Pal Singh v. State of U.P. 1991 All Cri R 228 : (1991 All LJ 624) and of the Supreme Court in the case of P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State of (CBI/SPE); 1996 (2) JIC 1356 (SC).
(3.) The aforesaid submission has been seriously challenged by the learned Additional Government Advocate. He submits that on appearance of the petitioners in response to summons/notice, they shall be taken to judicial custody and in the event, they move any application for bail, the Court will consider the same keeping in mind the nature and gravity of the offence. Provision regarding bail cannot be done away with merely because the petitioners were added as accused by order of the trial Judge under Section 319 of the Code.;