The provisions of the new Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, are wide enough to confer jurisdiction on the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, to grant bail to the petitioner.

N. C. Talukdar, J.:- This is an application for bail filed on behalf of one Govind Prasad Lath and is directed against an order dated the 20th March, 1975, passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, refusing the petitioner's prayer for bail in Ludhiana P.S. Case No. 620 dated 15-12-1974 under Sections 406/408/468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The application is with notice to the State and is opposed.

2. The facts leading on to the present application can be put in a short compass. On a complaint lodged by one Sat Paul Kanwar, decribed as a partner of the Vardhman General and Spinning Mills Ltd., at P.S. Sadar Ludhiana, Ludhiana P.S. Case No. 620 dated 15-12-1974 was started under Sections 406/408/ 468/471 of the Indian Penal Code. In course of the investigation that followed, the accused-petitioner who is stated to be a businessman living at 132/1, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Calcutta, was arrested on the 20th March, 1975, by the Ludhiana Police with the assistance of the police of the Jorasanko Police Station, in Calcutta and was produced on the same day before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta. On an application for bail moved on behalf of the accused-petitioner, Sri N.G Choudhury, Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, by his order dated the 20th March, 1975, rejected the prayer for bail "at this stage," and allowed the officer concerned coming from Ludhiana to take the accused away for being produced at the Ludhiana Court and to report compliance to the Calcutta Court by 8-4-1975. He further directed the accused to be in police custody till 29-3-1975 and ordered the matter to be put up on 25-3-1975 when the Investigating Officer was to be present with the case diary. This Order has been impugned and forms the subject-matter of the present application, which was filed in this Court on the 21st March, 1975 but could not be heard. On the same date, an application for bail was also filed in the court below but as the High Court was in seisin of the matter as mentioned above, the application could not be considered.

3. The submissions of Mr. Prasun Chandra Ghosh, Senior Advocate (with Messrs R.N. Chakraborty, Tapan Kumar Mitra, S.P. Talukdar, S.S. Roy and P.B. Chakraborty, Advocates) appearing in support of the application, are of four dimensions. Firstly, that the order passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta is not sustainable as being self-contradictory; secondly, that it is bad in law and improper because of, amongst others, the non-consideration of the non-conformance to Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Produre, 1973; thirdly that the impugned order is not also maintainable on merits and has operated to the prejudice of the accused-petitioner, inasmuch as, amongst others, the proceeding itself is not maintainable in law; and fourthly and finally that in any event the prayer for bail should have been allowed on compassionate grounds on any terms and conditions that the Court deemed fit and proper because of the manifold ailments which the accused-petitioner was suffering from. Mr. Rajesh Chandra Ghosh, Deputy Legal Remembrancer, State of West Bengal, besides replying to the contentions raised by Mr. Prasun Chandra Ghosh, on behalf of the accused-petitioner, raised a preliminary objection relating to the maintainability of the bail application on the ground that the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, is not the Magistrate "having jurisdiction in the case"

4. The preliminary objection raised by the learned Deputy Legal-Remembrancer is of importance, going to the root of the case and is accordingly taken up for consideration in the first blush. The broad submissions of Mr. Rajesh Chandra Ghosh in this behalf is that inasmuch as the accused-petitioner was arrested without warrant by the Ludhiana Police in Calcutta while pursuing the offender into other jurisdiction, the Calcutta Court has no o