( 1 ) BEING aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order dated 2/08/1984 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class Wadhwan in Criminal Case No. 269 of 1984 releasing the respondents on bail under section 167 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code the State has filed this revision application.

( 2 ) BEFORE dealing with the point in controversy it would be necessary to narrate few facts. On 19th January 1984 the incident is alleged to have taken place whereby one Umarbux Mohmedsadiqbux was abducted from Surat and was brought in Fiat car to Ahmedabad. From Ahmedabad he was taken to Surendranagar side where he was murdered by revolver shot. On this allegation a complaint was filed at Wadhwan Police Station in District Surendranagar. It is the prosecution version that the accused-respondents were absconding. On 10/03/1984 the respondents were arrested at Amirgadh Taluka Amirgadh. District Banaskantha for an offence punishable under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code for causing injuries to two Police Constables. It is alleged that at that time the respondents had used a revolver and fired against the Police Constables who had stopped the car on suspicion. On 16/03/1984 the respondents were produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Palanpur for the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The Chief Judicial Magistrate had remanded the accused persons to the police custody. On 25/06/1984 the investigating of officer had submitted the charge-sheet before the Judicial Magistrate. Wadhwan. Thereafter an application dated 30/06/1984 presented before the Court on 23/07/1984 that as the charge-sheet was not filed within 90 days hence the accused-respondents are entitled to be released on bail as a matter of right in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Babubhai Parshottamdas v. State reported in 22 G. L. R. 1232 (F. B.)

( 3 ) THIS application filed by the respondents was strongly opposed by the police prosecutor. The concerned investigating P. I. C. I. D. Crime Branch has filed a detailed affidavit narrating the facts that the accused are the head strong persons they are involved in number of cases they are big smugglers and they have large group. It is further alleged that if the accused are released on bail there would be further bloodshed. In affidavit-in-reply it was pointed out that under the Gujarat Amendment of section 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code when the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than 10 years then the Magistrate has jurisdiction to authorise the detention of the accused persons in Judicial custody upto a period of 120 days.

( 4 ) THE learned Judicial Magistrate Wadhwan held that he was bound to follow the decision of the Full Bench of the High Court and therefore he is required to release the accused on bail. In paragraph 5 he no doubt took into consideration the fact that the allegation against the accused Alamzebkhan is that he was a professional killer but he held that Judiciary cannot take into consideration the reports published in the newspaper. He held that even if it was believed that the accused are hardened criminals they are entitled to be released on bail under sec. 167 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

( 5 ) AFTER this decision of the Full Bench in the case of Babubhai parshottamdas (supra) the Supreme Court in the case of State of U. P. v. Lakshmi Brahman A. I. R. 1983 Supreme Court 439 has considered the point that even if the charge-sheet is submitted after 90 days before release of accused then it is not necessary that the accused should be released on bail. The Supreme court has reversed the decision of the ahmedabad High Court by holding that Magistrate has jurisdiction to authorise the detention of an accused in custody under section 309 of the Criminal Procedure Code after charge-sheet is submitted. In paragraph 5 of the decision the Supreme Court h