MAHESH BHAGWATI, J. - (1.) THIS order governs the disposal of bail application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. by Mr. Ravi Yadav Advocate on behalf of the applicants in FIR No. 98/07 of police station Andhi District Jaipur in the offences under Sections 147, 427, 436 and 451 of IPC.
(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the material on record. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that on the one hand the learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur District Jaipur vide his bail order dated 15.01.2009 has accepted the bail petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. and on the other hand in the last paragraph, in contra, has observed that the petitioners should appear before the Magistrate concerned and file an application for bail afresh who will considering the merits of the case, dispose of the same. Learned counsel has canvassed that this order of the learned Sessions Judge is contradictory in itself and while disposing of the petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. the discretion should not be left to the Magistrate as it frustrates the very purpose of the provisions of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. He has cited 2006(3) R.Cr.D 307 (Raj.) in support thereof. Learned Public Prosecutor has not opposed the bail petition. Having reflected over the submissions made at the bar and scanned the relevant material including the bail order dated 15.01.2009 rendered by the Sessions Judge, Jaipur District Jaipur, it is noticed that the order dated 15.01.2009 of learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur District Jaipur is per se contradictory and not happily worded. It seems that the learned Sessions Judge has inadvertently passed this order. Hence, learned counsel for the petitioners is directed to file a bail petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. afresh before the learned Sessions Judge who is expected to pass the orders in accordance with the provisions of law. This bail petition stands disposed of accordingly. ;