ORDER :

1. The petitioner herein calls in question legality, validity and correctness of the impugned order dated 7-10-2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Bilaspur in Criminal Revision No.119/2014, by which his revision petition has been dismissed affirming the order dated 11-04-2014 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Takhatpur in Criminal Case No.60/2014, whereby the petitioner’s application for grant of bail under Section 437 of the CrPC has been rejected by the learned trial Magistrate.

2. The above-stated challenge has been made on the following factual backdrop :-

3. The Police Station : Takhatpur registered first information report against the petitioner under Sections 509 of the IPC, 4 and 6 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 read with Sections 66(3), 67 and 72 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (for short, ‘the IT Act’) on 18-1-2013 and since all the offences registered against him were bailable offences, he was released on personal bond on 19-1-2013 by concerned police officer. It is the case of the petitioner that he was not intimated by the jurisdictional police about the filing of charge-sheet before the jurisdictional criminal court, but ultimately, without intimation to him, charge-sheet was filed on 28-3-2014 in his absence before the said Court and the said Court straightway registered criminal case and issued non-bailable warrant of arrest on which he was arrested and produced before the Magistrate on 10-4-2014 and he was straightway sent to the Central Jail, Bilaspur and his application filed under Section 437 of the CrPC on 10-4-2014 was placed for consideration on the next date i.e. 11-4-2014 and on 11-4-2014, it was rejected holding that the offences which he has been charged are bailable, yet prima facie, offence under Section 67A of the IT Act is also made out which is non-bailable offence, therefore, his application was rejected and revision preferred against that order has also been said to be dismissed by the impugned order.

4. This petition under Section 482 of the CrPC has been preferred stating inter alia that non-consideration of bail application in respect of the bailable offences by the learned trial Magistrate on the same day was clearly unwarranted and it is violation of his personal liberty and further, on the material placed before the Court on the date of producing his application for grant of bail only bailable offences were charged against him and therefore rejection without even directing for addition of charge under Section 67A of the IT Act is clearly unwarranted and it amounts to denial of personal liberty of the accused and unnecessarily he was required to remain in jail, and also on the ground that the accused was already released on personal bond on 19-1-2013 by the police station finding the offences are bailable and without intimation, charge-sheet was filed on 28-3-2014 and straightway non-bailable warrant of arrest was issued in bailable offences for prosecution of the petitioner in bailable offences which is clearly unsustainable and contrary to law, as such, the impugned order as well as the revisional order deserve to be set aside.

5. The State / respondent has filed return opposing the petition holding that the judicial order has rightly been passed which requires no interference.

6. Mr. Mirza Hafeez Baig, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit as under : -

1. On the date of filing of challan, the petitioner was already on bail released by concerned police officer as all the offences were bailable offences, therefore, on the production of charge-sheet, intimation about filing of charge-sheet ought to have been issued by the jurisdictional police to the petitioner so that he could have appeared before the jurisdictional Magistrate for accepting the charge-sheet; even in absence of that, the learned Judicial Magistrate could not have issued warrant of arrest straightway for securing his att