IMTIYAZ MURTAZA, J. - (1.) This Full Bench is constituted to consider the following questions : 1. Whether the arrest of an accused is a must If cognizable offence is disclosed in the FIR or in a criminal complaint; 2. Whether the High Court can direct the subordinate Courts to decide the Bail Application on the same day it is filed; and 3. Whether the case Dr. Vinod Narain v. State of U. P., Writ Petition No. 3643 of 1992 reported in 1995 (3) All Cri C 375 : (1996 Cri LJ 1309) has been correctly decided by the five -Judge Full Bench of this Court.
(2.) In the case of Dr. Vinod Narain (Writ Petition No. 3643 of 1992) it was held : "For the reasons recorded separately this Full Bench unanimously holds that in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution, while issuing direction and command to the Magistrate or the Court of Session as the case may be, to consider the bail application time schedule for concluding the bail proceedings cannot be fixed. Consequently, the decision rendered in Dr. Hidayat Hussain Khan v. State of U. P., (1992 Cri LJ 3534) is overruled and the decision rendered in Writ Petition No. 919 of 1992 (reported in 1994 All LJ 50) Noor Mohd. v. State of U. P. is upheld."
(3.) In the same judgment Hon'ble Palok Basu, J. observed (in paragraph 183) : "Once disclosure of cognizable offence is made, arrest of the accused or suspect is a "must" for there is no other known method by which he may be brought before the Court for trial, The words "if necessary" in Section 157 may at best make available a discretion to an investigating officer in a given case to defer arresting an accused or suspect if there is reasonable doubt about his identity. It is not possible to subscribe to the view that the word 'arrest' is made discretionary or that any other connotation may be extendable than what is noted in the preceding lines.";