A Metropolitan Magistrate lacks jurisdiction to grant bail to an accused charged with an offense punishable by death or life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC, unless the accused is under 16 years old, a woman, or sick or infirm.

Headnote:
BAIL - SECTION 302 IPC - SECTION 437(1) CRPC - INTERPRETATION - COURT'S JURISDICTION TO GRANT BAIL - SUMMARY: The High Court held that a Metropolitan Magistrate lacks jurisdiction to grant bail to an accused charged with an offense punishable by death or life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC, unless the accused is under 16 years old, a woman, or sick or infirm.
Fact of the Case:

The respondent was charged with murder under Section 302 IPC. The Metropolitan Magistrate granted him bail, considering his age (about 17 years) and the potential impact of his incarceration on his education. The State challenged this decision, arguing that the Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to grant bail in such a case.
Finding of the Court:

The High Court found that the Metropolitan Magistrate had no jurisdiction to grant bail to the respondent because the offense he was charged with was punishable by death or life imprisonment, and he did not fall under any of the exceptions provided in Section 437(1) CrPC.
Issues: 1. Whether the Metropolitan Magistrate had jurisdiction to grant bail to the respondent, who was charged with an offense punishable by death or life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC. 2. Whether the respondent's age and the potential impact of his incarceration on his education were sufficient grounds to grant bail in this case.
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court held that the provisions of Section 437(1) CrPC clearly state that a Metropolitan Magistrate cannot grant bail to an accused charged with an offense punishable by death or life imprisonment, unless the accused is under 16 years old, a woman, or sick or infirm. In this case, the respondent did not fall under any of these exceptions, and therefore the Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to grant him bail.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the State's petition and quashed the Metropolitan Magistrate's order granting bail to the respondent. The respondent was ordered to be taken into custody forthwith.

JUDGMENT - VISHNU SHAHAI, J.:---Heard Mr. R.Y. Mirza for the petitioner and Mr. S.L. Kapse for the respondent.

By means of this application, preferred under section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. the petitioner (State of Maharashtra) seeks to impugn the order dated 2-12-1991 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 34th Court, Vikroli, Bombay granting bail to the respondent in a case under section 302 I.P.C.

2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 24-9-1991, at about 5 p.m. the respondent, co-accused Ladu, Balu and Rajesh @ Pappu Suvarna assaulted the deceased Shivaji with knives. Complainant Sanjay Kamble who was an eye witness of the incident thereupon shouted and thereafter respondent and others ran away.

After the incident, complainant removed Shivaji, who was still alive, to Rajawadi Hospital for treatment. He then lodged a F.I.R. on the basis of which a case under section 326/114 I.P.C. was registered against respondent and others.

3. It appears that Shivaji succumbed to his injuries on 25-9-1991 (next day) at Rajawadi Hospital. After his death, the case was converted to one under section 302 I.P.C.

4. The contention of the learned A.P.P. is that in-as-much as the respondent was being prosecuted under section 302 I.P.C. which is an offence punishable with death or life imprisonment, there was an embargo on the learned Metropolitan Magistrate to have granted bail to him in view of the provisions contained in section 437(1) Cr.P.C. I find substance in this contention of the learned A.P.P. The provisions contained in section 437(1)(i) Cr.P.C. mean that if there are reasonable grounds to believe that a person is guilty of an offence punishable with life imprisonment or death, a Metropolitan Magistrate would not have jurisdiction to grant bail. In such a case the Metropolitan Magistrate, by virtue of the powers contained in the proviso to section 437(1) Cr.P.C. would only have the jurisdiction to grant bail if the accused-person is below 16 years of age, or is a woman or is sick or is infirm.

5. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate was persuaded to grant bail to the respondent because, he was aged about 17 years and his confinement in jail would be an obstacle in his education. A perusal of the impugned order also shows that some other considerations which have been detailed in the order, also weighed with the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, in granting bail to the respondent.

6. Two things are however, crystal clear in the instant case :---

(A) That the offence in respect of which bail was granted by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, namely section 302 I.P.C., is punishable with death or life imprisonment and since there are reasonable grounds to believe that the respondent committed it (the informant is an eye witness) the Metropolitan Magistrate would not have jurisdiction to grant bail unless the respondent was below 16 years of age or a woman or sick or infirm;

(B) That in the instant case, the respondent was neither below 16 years of age, nor a woman nor sick nor infirm. A perusal of the impugned order shows that on none of these considerations the respondent was granted bail.

In such a situation, it becomes crystal clear that the Metropolitan Magistrate had absolutely no jurisdiction to grant bail to the respondent. It is well-settled that the plea of jurisdiction goes to the root of the matter. It renders an order a nullity in law.

7. Mr. Kapse learned Counsel for the respondent vehemently contended that it was a border line case and if on the ground that he was aged about 17 years of age and his education would suffer, if not released on bail, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate granted bail to the respondent, it would be far-far too harsh for this Court to cancel this bail after five years and three months; especially because all the co-accused persons, whose cases on merits are identical to that of the respondent, are on bail, having been released from the Sessions Court.

8. I am aware tha

Click Here to Read the rest of this document