Pritam Singh Pattar, J. - (1.) BY this Order the following three petitions filed by the State of Haryana under Section 439(2), Criminal Procedure Code, for cancellation of the bail of the Respondents in these petitions will be decided as common questions of law are involved therein: JUDGEMENT_4_LAWS(P&H)11_1975.htm
(2.) AGAINST the Respondents in cases mentioned at Serial Nos. (1) and (2) above, the first information reports were lodged on 5th July, 1975, under Rule 33 of the Defence of India Rules, and the Respondents were arrested on the same date. However, in the third case State v. Mohinder Parkash Gupta, the case under Rule 33 of the Defence of India Rules was registered on 7th July, 1975, and the accused were arrested on that date. The Haryana Government issued notification under Clause (b) of Rule 184 of the Defence of India Rules, 1971, (hereinafter called the Rules), wherein Rule 33 was specified and the same was published in the Gazette on 8th July, 1975. The accused in all these three cases were admittedly arrested prior to 8th July, 1975. The learned Sessions Judge, Ambala, held in his order dated 4th September, 1975, in case State v. Rajinder Nath (supra), that since the accused was arrested prior to the issuance of the above mentioned notification on 8th July, 1975, by the State Government, therefore, he is entitled to be released on bail and he ordered that he should be released on bail on his furnishing a bond in the sum of Rs. 3,000/ - with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the llaqa Magistrate. Similar orders releasing the accused on bail in the other two cases mentioned at Serial Nos. (2) and (3) above were passed on 30th August, 1975, and 5th September, 1975, respectively. The State of Haryana filed these petitions to cancel the bail granted to the accused in these cases on the allegations that on the dates when the orders granting bail were passed by the Sessions Judge, the notification under Clause (b) of Rule 184 of the Rules had already been issued and, therefore, in accordance with the provisions of Rule 184, the accused could not be released on bail and the orders of release being illegal may be set aside and the accused may be arrested and committed to custody. Notices of these petitions were issued to the Respondents and they contested the same. Since common questions of law are involved in these petitions, therefore, these petitions will be decided by this order.
(3.) MR . H.N. Mehtani, the Learned Counsel for the State, argued, that according to the provisions of Rule 184 of the Defence of India Rules, the Respondents could not be released on bail, and, therefore, the orders, passed by the Sessions Judge are illegal and may be set aside and they may be committed to custody. There is no dispute regarding the facts of these cases mentioned above. The law regarding the grant of bail is a matter of procedure and the order of bail is to be passed in accordance with the law prevailing at the time when the order is passed. Rule 184 of the Defence of India Rules reads as follows: Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (5 of 1898), no person accused or convicted of a contravention of these rules or orders made there -under shall, if in custody, be released on bail on his own bond unless - (a) the prosecution has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and (b) where any such provision of these rules or orders made there -under as the Central Government or the State Government may by notified order specify in this behalf, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such contravention. In the instant cases the Sessions Judge passed the orders granting bail to the Respondents in these cases long after the issuance of the notification under Clause (b) of Rule 184 of the Defence of India Rules. He also did not give any finding that there were reasonable grounds for believing that they are not guilty of the contravention of Rule 33 of the Rules. Therefore, the orders passed by the Sessions Judge cannot be sustained. Under Section 439(2), Criminal Procedure Code, the High Court has ample power to set aside an order which is against the express provisions of law. This section says that the High Court may direct that any person who has been released on bail under this Chapter may be arrested and commit him to custody. Rule 184 of the Rules lays down a special procedure for grant of bail to the accused who are being prosecuted for contravention of these rules or orders made there -under. Unless the conditions laid down in this Rule 184 were satisfied, the Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned orders granting bail to the accused.;