A.S.GILL, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by which the petitioners seek a direction that the Magistrate should accept the surety bonds under Section 304 -B, Indian Penal Code from the petitioners. At the very out set the learned Counsel for the petitioners stated that he does not press this petition on behalf of petitioner No.3 Smt. Shyama Devi. The same is dismissed as not pressed for that petitioner.
(2.) THE grievance of the petitioners is that they were involved in a case under Sections 302/498 -A, I.P.C., registered vide FIR dated 7.4.87 and they applied for bail before the Sessions Judge, who allowed the bail application and on furnishing their bail bonds and surety bonds they remained on bail eversince. It is further stated that the charge -sheet has now been submitted under Sections 498 -A/304 -B of the Indian Penal 'Code and the learned Magistrate has passed an order dated 21st June, 1996, whereby he has expressed that the petitioners are not on bail under Section 304 -B, IPC, and they are required fresh bails.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel contends that at the time of filing of 1st bail application the nature of the offences and the copy of the FIR was perused by the Sessions Judge, in which there was very much mention of offence under Section 302, IPC and presumably they were allowed bail under Section 302 read with Section 498 -A, IPC and they have never misused the bail eversince. It is contended that unfortunately in the bail application of the petitioners Section 304 -B was not mentioned and as such the Sessions Judge did not mention in his bail order Section 304 -B and as such the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the case, requiring the petitioners to seek fresh bail, otherwise they are required to be sent to Jail. Learned Counsel states that if the petitioners move a fresh bail application then they have to first surrender themselves and they would be sent to jail and thereafter their bail application would be heard for no fault of their. The learned Government Advocate has opposed this application and submitted that since the Sessions Judge has specifically mentioned that the bail was granted under Section 498 -A, IPC, the petitioners are required to move application for bail under Section 304 -B, IPC. After considering the entire matter and hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that since the petitioners have already been granted bail under Section 498 -A and they are not said to have misused the concession, they are not required to seek fresh bail under Section 304 -B, IPC, which offence is mentioned in the charge -sheet, on the basis that at the time of considering their bail application the prosecution was well aware that the case against the petitioners was under Section 302, IPC and so the Sessions Judge must have considered this aspect of the case. Besides that till today the viscera report has also not been submitted along with the charge -sheet. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon a decision in Iqbal Narain and Others v. State of U.P., 1987 ACC 106. In this decision similarly the accused persons were initially allowed bail under Sections 323 and 324, IPC but later on at the time of submission of the charge -sheet the offences under Sections 308 and 325, IPC were added and the concession of bail in respect of the offences later on added in the charge -sheet was allowed in a petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. Even otherwise no useful purpose would be served at this belated stage by sending the petitioners to Jail.;