SHRAWAN HANAJI UNDIRWALE AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused persons in Criminal Revision Application No. 90 of 1976 were arrested on 10-2-1976 as an offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against them. Thereafter they were remanded to the Magisterial custody from time to time. As the period of detention authorised by the Magistrate exceeded 60 days, the accused filed an application for bail before the Sessions Judge, Chandrapur, on 20-4-1976. It appears from the record that vide order dated 9-4-1976 the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gadchiroli had granted a remand upto 23-4-1976. The Sessions Judge vide his order dated 20 4-1976 directed the Public Prosecutor to give his say regarding the said application for bail. The Public Prosecutor vide his endorsement dated 5 5-1976 stated that he had no instructions till that day and he is seeking instructions from the Police Sub-Inspector concerned and therefore the matter should be adjourned. It appears that thereafter matter was adjourned to 15-5-1976. On 15-5-1976, the Advocate for the applicants remained absent. The application filed by the accused was opposed by the State and therefore the said application was rejected by the Sessions Judge, Chandrapur. Against this order, the present Criminal Revision Application is filed. It further appears from the record that in the meantime i.e. on 10-5-1976 a charge-sheet was presented by the police before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gadchiroli and the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gadchiroli passed an order committing the case to the Sessions Court on 14-5-1976.

(2.) So far as Criminal Application No. 889 of 1976 is concerned, it appears that the incident took place on the night between 29-2-1976 and 1-3-1976 and the police registered a case against the accused for an offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code on, 1-3-1976. The accused was arrested on 2-3-1976 for the offence of murder and thereafter he was produced before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Wardha. From time to time remands were taken for completing the investigation. The police took the last remand on 26-4-1976 which was granted by the Magistrate and the case was adjourned to 10-5-1976. On 10-5-1976, the police filed the charge-sheet and then the papers were transferred to the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Wardha. On the same day, the accused filed an application under section 167(2) of the New Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, for releasing him on bail. In this application, he alleged that since police did not file the charge-sheet within 60 days he should be released on bail. On 10-5-1976, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Wardha, adjourned the case to 11-5-1976 and he passed an order committing the accused to stand his trial before the Sessions Court under section 302 of the Indian Panal Code, on 11-5-1976.

(3.) It appears from the record that thereafter the accused filed an application for grant of bail before the Sessions Judge, Wardha, on 25-5-1976 under sections 437 and 439 read with section 167(2) of the Code Criminal Procedure for releasing him on bail. It further appears from the record that since the case was fixed for passing a commital order, the earlier application for bail filed by the accused was rejected by the trial Court. The learned Sessions Judge on the basis of the material placed before him came to the conclusion that the accused had filed an application for bail under section 167(2) of the Code Criminal Procedure after the police had filed a charge-sheet in the case. He further found that the remand was granted by the trial Court till 10-5-1976 as 8th and 9th of May 1976, were holidays. As according to the learned Sessions Judge, Wardha, the application for bail itself was filed after the charge-sheet was presented by the State the Chief Judicial Magistrate was right in rejecting the said application and thereafter in passing the committal order. In this view of the matter according to learned Sessions Judge it could not be said that the detention of the accused is in any way illegal or unauthorised. On the merits of the matter, he came to the conclusion that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it would not be proper to release the accused on bail. Therefore, vide an order dated 14-6-1976 the learned Sessions Judge, Wardha, rejected the bail application filed by the accused. Against this order, the present criminal application has been filed by the accused praying that he should be released on bail. Initially, these matters came up for hearing before the single Judge of this Court and as they involved an important questions of law they were referred to the Division Bench and therefore they were placed before us for hearing.