- (1.) J. C. Mishra, J. This is an applica tion for cancellation of bail granted to the accused opposite parties on the ground that Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to grant bail and only the Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area) had power to entertain and grant bail as the accused were involved in "scheduled offence" as defined in Dacoity Affected Areas Act.
(2.) THE learned counsel for the ac cused opposite parties contended that the Sessions Judge had jurisdiction to grant bail. THE only question that arises for con sideration is whether the Session Judge, Agra had jurisdiction to consider the bail application under Sections 364-A/302/201,1. P. C. in crime No. 275 of 1996 P. S. Kheragarh, District Agra. It has not been disputed by either side that Court of Special Judge under the Dacoity Affected Area Act was created for the area in which the offence took place. The accused was involved under Sections 364-A, 302 and 201,1. P. C. The prosecution case is that a gang of 10-12 dacoits ab ducted Arya Deo on 2- 12-96 and there after they committed his murder. The dead body was found on 26-12-96 in the State of Rajasthan within the jurisdiction of police station Mania, district Dhaulpur. The learned Sessions Judge, Agra by order dated 14-12-97 granted bail to Shobaran on the ground that no incriminating evidence could be disclosed by the prosecution in the crime complained and his complicity came to light 20 days after the recovery of the dead body. On similar ground the ac cused Bharat and Ram Shankar were granted bail by order dated 26-2-97. The opposite parties filed counter affidavit stating that an offence punishable under Section 364-A, I. P. C. is "scheduled offence" as defined in Section 2-B of the Dacoity Affected Area Act (U. P. Act No. 31 of 1983) (herein called the Act for con venience) but the Act does not curtail the power of Sessions Judge to consider bail of the accused involved in the scheduled of fence within the meaning of the Act. The learned counsel relied on some pronoun cements in support of their contention. The learned counsel for the applicant referred to a decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in State of Punjab v. Piara Singh, 1985 Cr. LJ 146. The learned Single Bench after considering the various provisions held that only special Court is empowered to grant bail in scheduled offences as enumerated in Terrorist Affected Areas (Special Courts) Act, 1984. The learned counsel contended that the provisions of the Dacoity Affected Areas Act 1983 and the Terrorist Affected Areas (Special Courts) Act, 1984 are similar and there fore, this pronouncement applies with full force to the facts of the case.
(3.) THE learned counsel also con tended that this Court has got power to cancel bail granted even in cases of wrong exercise of jurisdiction and ignoring specific provisions of law in granting bail. Refer ence has been made to a decision of this Court in Virendra Singh v. State of U. P, 1984 ALJ 1111. Similar view has taken in Shyam Lalv. State of U. P, 1983 (20) ACC374. The Uttar Pradesh Dacoity Af fected Areas Act, 1983 (U. P. Act No. 31 of 1983) was enacted to curb effectively the commission of scheduled offences in the Dacoity Affected Areas of the State and to make provisions for punishment and speedy trial thereof. Section 5 of the Act empowered the State Government in con sultation of the High Court to constitute by notification special Courts. Section 6 conferred jurisdiction to try scheduled of fences only by a Special Court. Sub-section (2) of Section 7 of the Act provides that a Special Court shall, while trying a scheduled offence, so far as may be, follow the procedure provided by the Code of Criminal Procedure, for trial of Sessions cases. Sub-section (3) of Section 7 made the Code of Criminal Procedure ap plicable provided they are not inconsis tent with the provisions of the Act. The Special Court is deemed to be a Court of Sessions for the purpose of the Code of Criminal Procedure.;