The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the Magistrate to specifically negate the existence of reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is guilty of an offence punishable with the sentence of death or imprisonment for life when granting bail in cases exclusively triable by the Court of Session.

JUDGMENT

Debangsu Basak, J. - Petitioner seeks cancellation of the order granting bail to private opposite parties on March 17, 2021 and March 29, 2021.

2. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that in respect of a police case which involves an allegation of murder, against private opposite parties, the learned Magistrate proceeded to grant bail to the opposite party no. 1 on the ground that he was appearing in the Higher Secondary Examination. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate enlarged two other private opposite parties being opposite party nos. 2 and 3 on the ground that one co-accused namely, Rahul Pradhan, was on bail. Therefore, he proceeded to grant bail to the opposite party nos. 2 and 3. He submits that the learned Magistrate did not record any reason for granting bail to the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 on March 29, 2021. Therefore, such order is bad in law.

3. State and private opposite parties are represented.

4. Learned advocate appearing for the private opposite parties submits that the police filed charge sheet in which, the police did not name the private opposite party no. 1 as an accused.

5. In view of police filing the charge sheet without arranging the private opposite party no. 1 as an accused therein, the application for cancellation of bail so far as the opposite party no. 1 is concerned, is dismissed as against him.

6. So far as the private opposite party nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, it appears from the case records that the learned Magistrate proceeded to grant bail to them on March 29, 2021 solely on the consideration that the Rahul Pradhan was enlarged on bail. No other reason was recorded while granting bail.

7. Learned advocate for the private opposite parties relies upon Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. NCT, Delhi & anr. reported in 2001 SCC (Cri) 674 and submits that, in given circumstances, the learned Magistrate can grant bail in respect of offences which are triable by the Session Court. He contends that it was the error on the part of the learned Magistrate in not assigning any reason in the order dated March 29, 2021. Therefore, the private opposite party nos. 2 and 3 should not be faulted for the failure of the learned Magistrate in providing reasons while granting bail.

8. Prahlad Singh Bhati (supra) is of the following view :-

'6. Even though there is no legal bar for a Magistrate to consider an application for grant of bail to a person who is arrested for an offence exclusively triable by a Court of Session yet it would be proper and appropriate that in such a case the Magistrate directs the accused person to approach the Court of Session for the purposes of getting the relief of bail. Even in a case where any Magistrate opts to make an adventure of exercising the powers under Section 437 of the Code in respect of a person who is suspected of the commission of such an offence, arrested and detained in that connection, such Magistrate has to specifically negate the existence of reasonable ground for believing that such an accused is guilty of an offence punishable with the sentence of death or imprisonment for life. In a case where the Magistrate has no occasion and in fact does not find, that there were no reasonable grounds to believe that the accused had not committed the offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, he shall be deemed to be having no jurisdiction to enlarge the accused on bail.

7. Powers of the Magistrate, while dealing with the applications for grant of bail, are regulated by the punishment prescribed for the offence in which the bail is sought. Generally speaking if punishment prescribed is for imprisonment for life and death penalty and the offence is exclusively triable by the Court of Session, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to grant bail unless the matter is covered by the provisos attached to Section 437 of the Code. The limitations circumscribing the jurisdiction of the Magistrate are evident and apparent. assumption of jurisdiction to entertain the ap