The main legal point established in the judgment is that bail should not be withheld as a punishment, and the decision to grant bail should be based on the probability of the accused appearing for trial, the nature of the accusation, the nature of the evidence, and the severity of the prescribed punishment.

JUDGMENT

Mookerjee, J. - This rule, which was granted by Suhrawardy and Chotzner, JJ., on the 29th August, 1923, calls upon the District Magistrate of Alipore to show cause why the petitioner Nagendranath Chakrabarti should not be let out on bail. As the rule has been opposed on behalf of the Grown, the facts material for the determination of the question must be narrated in detail.

2. The petitioner, who was arrested on the 5th August, 1.923, by Inspector Hernchandra Lahiri of the Calcutta Police, asserts that ho is a motor mechanic and driver and holds certificates of good character from various gentlemen, Indian and European, who have employed him during the last ten years. He further alleges that at the time of his arrest his house was thoroughly searched but nothing suspicions or incriminating was found. The petitioner, after his arrest on the 5th August, is said to have been produced on the 16th August before a Deputy Commissioner of Police to whom he applied for bail; but the application was refused. On the 18th August an application for bail was then made on his behalf to the Chief Presidency Magistrate, but he was informed that his proper remedy was by Habeas Corpus. On the 20th August, the petitioner was produced for the first time before the Police Magistrate at Sealdah, to whom he applied for bail. The Magistrate thereupon recorded the following order:

Thirty-two accused sent up, charged under Sections 400 and 401, Indian Penal Code. They are remanded to hajat till 4-9-23. Confession and search lists and diary should be produced to show that; there is justification for detaining them in custody, if no chalan is submitted on that date.

3. This order was made on the basis of a letter which was addressed by the Inspector of Police, Detective Department, to the Police Magistrate, Sealdah, and was forwarded by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, C.I.D. The letter was in the following terms:

I beg to produce before Your Honour the following accused who are concerned in several cases of dacoities, murders for gain, drugging, robberies, house-breaking with thefts and thefts, committed in the suburbs and town of Calcutta, as also the surrounding districts and other places.

I beg further to mention that one of the gang members has made a confessing statement before Magistrate implicating these men as well as others and that the Local Government have been pleased to appoint a Special Magistrate to verify the confession.

In the circumstances, I pray that the accused be remanded pending judicial verification and investigation with a view to their prosecution under Sections 400 and 401, Indian Penal Code.

4. Then follow the names of the persons produced; the list includes the name of the petitioner who is described as "Nagendranath Chakrabarti alias Nagen, d river, son of Rsiklal Chakrabarti.

5. On the 25th August, an application for hail was made on behalf of the petitioner to the District and Sessions Judge of the 24 Parganas. The application was dismissed by the following order:

This is an application or bail. It appears that the accused was arrested by the Calcutta police and produced after several days before the Magistrate at Sealdah who has remanded the accused to custody for a for night. It is argued that only Section 344, Criminal Procedure Code, is applicable; that refers to the stage of the trial. The cases still under investigation. The Magistrate does not seem to be without jurisdiction in ordering detention of the accused from the date on which he was produced before him. I do not think that I should interfere at the stage. It has u/s 400 or 401. Indian Penal Code, is contemplated against the accused and many others the Magistrate has taken time to look round and has called for the confessions and diaries to be put up before him on the next date fixed. Apparently a gang case of some kind is contemplated. The accused was placed before the Magistrate only five days ago. There has not been sufficient time given to the Magistrate