- (1.) The respondents, Ram Partap, Balbir, Phusa and Manphul were arrested by the police in connection with a case under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code registered against them, vide first information report No. 137, dated 15th October, 1962, at Police Station Sadar, Hissar, in connection with the murder of Basti Ram who lost his wife on 15th October, 1962, while on his way from Adamputr to Mandi. An application for bail was presented to Shri Des Raj, Magistrate First Class, Hissar on behalf of the respondents other than Manphul. The learned Magistrate by his order dated 19th February, 1963 accepted the application and ordered the release of the respondent Ram Partap, Balbir and Phusa on their furnishing bailbonds in the sum of Rs. 5000/- with one surety in the like amount. They were, however, directed to appear before the ilaqa Magistrate on 27th February, 1963. Subsequently, an application for bail was presented to the Sessions Judge, Hissar, on behalf of Manphul respondent who was still in custody. The learned Sessions Judge, however, declined to admit to him to bail as he had been arrested in a case under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
(2.) Thereafter on 25th February, 1963 a petition for bail on behalf of Manphul (Criminal Revision No. 218 of 1963) was made to this court through his counsel, Shri H.C. Sethi, Advocate of Hissar. The next day when this application was laid before me, I directed the notice to issue to the State for a very early date, and after due service of the notice the petition came up for hearing before me on 27th March, 1963. Strangely enough none appeared on behalf of the State and Shri H.C. Sethi, learned counsel for Manphul, on whose behalf the application for bail had been made, contended that the application had become infructuous as since the date of the issue of notices to the State Manphul had been released by the Ilaqa Magistrate. It appeared to me at that time strange that when the application of bail had already been rejected not only by the Magistrate but also by the Court of Sessions and the matter was under consideration of his Court on Manphul's own application, and Magistrate, who knew his function should have acted in the manner in which Shri B.R. Azad, Magistrate First Class Hissar, had done when he ordered the release of Manphul on bail. I accordingly directed that the copies of the various orders passed by the Magistrate on Manphul's bail application should be obtained alongwith his explanation through the District Magistrate Hissar.
(3.) After receipt of the relevant papers, the matter was put up before me on 19th April, 1963. Finding that the order of the Magistrate, dated 25th March, 1963 granting bail to Manphul, had been passed without due consideration of the merits of the case and in disregard of the fact that the bail had already been refused by the learned Sessions Judge, I directed that a notice be issued to Manphul why his bail should not be cancelled. I also formed the opinion that the validity of the earlier order of Shri Des Raj, Duty Magistrate Hissar, dated 19th February, 1963 was also open to question. Notices were accordingly, issued to other respondents, Ram Partap, Balbir and Phusa as well as calling them to show cause why the bail granted to them by the Magistrate should not be cancelled. I response to his notice, all the four respondents have appeared with Shri H.C. Sethi, Advocate.;