IMPORTANT POINT
Once a case has been committed to the Sections Court, the Judge is required to decide whether the accused should be kept in judicial custody or should be released on bail.

JUDGMENT

M. B. Shah, J.- Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order dated 2nd August, 1984 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Wadhwan in Criminal Case No. 269 of 1984 releasing the respondents on bail under Section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the State has filed this revision application.

2 Before dealing with the point in controversy it would be necessary to narrate few facts. On 19th January 1984 the incident is alleged to have taken place whereby one Umarbux Mohmed Sadiqbux was abducted from Surat and was brought in Fiat Car to Ahmedabad. From Ahmedabad he was taken to Surendranagar side where he was murdered by revolver shot. On this allegation a complaint was filed at Wadhwan Police Station in District Surendranagar. It is the prosecution version that the accused-respondents were absconding. On 10th March 1984 the respondents were arrested at Amirgadh, Taluka Amirgadh. District Banaskantha, for an offence punishable under section 307 of the. Indian Penal Code for causing injuries to the Police Constables. It is alleged that at that time the respondents had used a revolver and fired against the Police Constables who stopped the car on suspicion. On 16th March 1984 the respondents were produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palampur, for the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The Chief Judicial Magistrate had remanded the accused persons to the police custody. On 25th June 1984 the investigating officer had submitted the charge-sheet before the Judicial Magistrate, Wadhwan. Thereafter an application dated 30th June 1984 was-presented before the Court on 23rd July 1984 that as the charge-sheet was not filed within 90 days. Hence the accused-respondents are entitled to be released on bail as a matter of right in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Babubhai Parshottamdas v. State1.

3. This application filed by the respondents was strongly opposed by the Police Prosecutor. The concerned investigating P.I. C.I.D., Crime Branch, has filed a detailed affidavit narrating the facts that the accused are the head-strong persons, they are involved in number of cases, they are big smugglers and they have large group. It is further alleged that if the accused are released on bail, there would be further bloodshed. In affidavit-in reply it was pointed out that under the Gujarat Ammdment of Section 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code when the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of Dot less than 10 years, then the Magistrate has jurisdiction to authorise the detention of the accused persons in judicial custody upto a period of 120 days.

4. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Wadhwan, held that he was bound to follow the decision of the Full Bench of the High, Court and, therefore, he is required to release the accused on bail. In paragraph 5 be no doubt took into consideration the fact that the allegation against the accused Alamzebkhan is that be was a professional killer, but he held that Judiciary cannot take into consideration the reports published in the newspaper. He held that even if it was believed that the accused are hardened criminals, they are entitled to be released on bail under section 267(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

5. After this decision of the Full Bench in the case of Babubhai Parshottamdas (supra), the Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Lakshmi Brahman2 has considered the point that even if the charge-sheet is submitted after 90 days before release of accused, then it is not necessary that the accused should be released on bail. The Supreme Court has reversed the decision of the Allahabad High Court by holding that Magistrate has jurisdiction to authorise the detention of an accused in Cllstocv under .section 309 of the Criminal Procedure Code after charge-sheet is submitted. In paragraph 5 of the decision the Supreme Court has held as under ;

"In