The court emphasized the importance of considering the legal and factual aspects of the case while deciding on the bail application, and highlighted the need for the Magistrate to re-evaluate the bail application in light of the altered penal section.

A.M. Thipsay, J.

1. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith.

2. By consent, heard finally.

3. The petitioners are the accused in C.R. No. 20 of 2014 registered at Vengurla Police Station. The case was initially registered in respect of offences punishable u/s. 354 IPC,323 IPC, 341 IPC, 504 IPC, 506 IPC r/w section 149 of the IPC and section 143 of the IPC. The case was registered on 5th April 2014. It appears that though the names of the petitioners were mentioned as the accused in the FIR, none of them was arrested till 9th April 2014, on which date the petitioners surrendered themselves before the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Vengurla. Along with the application for surrender, the petitioners also made a prayer for bail, contending that all the offences allegedly committed by them, were bailable. When on 9th April 2014, the petitioners had surrendered themselves before the Magistrate, the police had filed a report in which, while mentioning the offences allegedly committed by the petitioners, reference was made to section 354A IPC, instead section 354 IPC in respect of which, initially the case had been registered. Apparently, the police had later changed the penal section from 354 IPC to 354A of the IPC. The Magistrate accepted the surrender of the petitioners, and released them on bail, observing that all the offences allegedly committed by them, were bailable. The First Informant was aggrieved by the order granting bail to the petitioner, but instead of seeking cancellation of bail, she moved the Court of Sessions by filing an application for revision. This Revision Application was allowed by the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge set aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate, and remanded the application for bail to the Magistrate for reconsideration. It is being aggrieved by this order dated 10th June 2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sindhudurg, that the petitioners have approached this Court, invoking its constitutional jurisdiction.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. I have also heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

5. Indeed, a number of issues, including whether the Revision Application could have been entertained by the learned Sessions Judge, at all, looking to the nature of the order passed by the Magistrate, would arise in the present petition. However, in the view that I am taking, it is not necessary to go deeper into such aspects.

6. It is not in dispute, and cannot be doubted that initially when the FIR was registered, there was a mention of an offence punishable under section 354 IPC which is a non bailable offence. It also appears that when the accused surrendered before the Magistrate on 9th April 2014 and sought bail, the copy of the FIR had been altered, and the offence punishable under section 354 IPC, as was initially mentioned was changed to the offence punishable under section 354A IPC by adding ' A ' subsequently . These facts are apparent, and not doubted or disputed. The offence punishable under section 354A of the IPC is bailable. Thus, what transpires is that though the case was initially registered in respect of a non-bailable offence, when the accused made a prayer for bail, the police themselves projected the offence to be a bailable one. The bail came to be granted under these circumstances without considering any other aspects of the matter. The Magistrate had no occasion to know that the penal section had been changed, and to consider whether the change was proper, legal or justified.

7. Considering this, I am not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Sessions Judge, inasmuch as the learned Sessions Judge has not directed that the accused should be taken in custody, and has merely directed that their application for bail should be reconsidered.

8. It, however, does appear that the criticism of the learned Magistrate's order, as done by the Sessions Judge, is not justified. The learned Sessions