IMPORTANT POINT
For making an order under section 107 Criminal Procedure Code the first step should be to make an order under section 111 Criminal Procedure Code. Further the order cannot be made in a routine mechanical manner without the application of mind.

JUDGMENT

V.D. Gyani, J. - The petitioners in this Miscellaneous case made a grievance that inspite of an order of being released on bail for offences under sections 307, 147, 148 and 149, Indian Penal Code, they were still detained in jail at Kannod, in pursuance to an order passed by the Executive Magistrate, Hatpipliya, in Criminal Case No. 148 of 1985, under sections 151 and 107, Criminal Procedure Code. In fact the present petitioners had moved the Court of Sessions at Dewas, bringing all facts to the notice of the learned Sessions Judge, in Criminal Revision No.5 of 1985. As the petitioners were not released the learned Sessions Judge was requested to send for the record, which in fact was sent for and the requisition was received by the Executive Magistrate, Hatpipliya on 18.8.1985. The Criminal revision before the Sessions Judge was listed for hearing on 20.8.1985. On this date of hearing the petitioners again made a grievance about their being detained in jail under section 107, 116(3) and 151 Criminal Procedure Code and complained that their detention was illegal. It is to be noted with regret that the Executive Magistrate at Hatpipliya for no reason whatsoever, either disclosed here, before this Court or mentioned in the record of the said case No. 148 of 1985, did not send the record to the Court of Sessions and the learned Sessions Judge, feeling helpless in the matter, dismissed, the said revision. It is in such circumstances that the present petition is moved under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code for being released on bail which in fact, had already been granted to them.

2. By order dated 3.9.1985 the Jailor at Sub-Jail, Kannod, was directed to produce the applicants in person before this Court on 9.9.198.5 and the record of the Court of the Executive Magistrate. Hatpipliya, was also sent for along with a direction to the said Magistrate to remain present in person. Accordingly the record was obtained and the Executive Magistrate also remained present.

3. Going through the record of the came it is difficult to believe that it is a record of a Judicial proceeding. The first step required to betaken in such proceedings under section 107 Criminal Procedure Code is the, making of an order under section 111 Criminal Procedure Code which the Executive Magistrate made on 2.8.85. It is nothing but a carbon impression of much order of Court of, Sub-Division Magistrate, Bagli as can be seen from the title of to order posted in smile other case. An that the Executive Magistrate has done, is to make few required insertions with an alteration in the amount of bail. The Executive Magistrate, who, is present today admits having obtained the same for the purpose of this case. It is a travesty of justice as well as liberty of citizens that such orders are being passed in routine mechanical material manner, without any application of mind, as is revealed in this very case, from the other orders and it is inconceivable on record, that an executive Magistrate at Hatpipliya would give the title to Sub-Divisional Magistrate Bagli to an order passed by him. Even copying it is said need a certain degree of application of mind but that too is missing.

4. An application of bail (at page 13 of the record which is again referred to 29) was preferred on behalf of the non-applicants i.e. the present petitioners on 2.8.1985 itself which admittedly bears an endorsement by the executive Magistrate to this effect, but is omitted from the order sheet dated 2.8.1985. Even the alteration in page is significant in the sense that is replaced at page 13 is the recorded statement of the station officer, Hatpipliya Police Station. As admitted the record had to be re-arranged for being produced in this Court, It appears that a slip-shot attempt was made for inserting this statement ; otherwise this bail application, which should have, found its place at page 13, as originally given thereon. Although the order dated 2.8.1985, which, is nothing but a c