Ranawat, J. — This is a revision application filed by the complainant Newad Ram against an order of the Sessions Judge, Bharatpur, dated the 5th July 1951, by which the four accused persons who had been committed by the City Magistrate, Bharatpur, to stand their trial under sec. 302 I.P.C. were allowed to remain on bail. The Government Advocate has supported the application of the complainant. A notice was issued to the opposite parties.

2. The argument of the learned counsel of the applicant is that the accused persons have been committed to Sessions under s. 302 I.P.C. which is an offence punishable with death or transportation for life and under sec. 497 Cr.P.C. it was not open to the Magistrate to have allowed the accused persons to remain on bail. The learned Sessions Judge, it is said on behalf of the complainant, did not apply his mind to the facts of the case making an order in favour of the accused. Prima facie it is argued, there was evidence against the accused for committing them to the court of Sessions to stand their trial under sec. 302 I.P.C. and on this account the City Magistrate made a commitment order; that court could not therefore be supposed to have held that there were no reasonable grounds to believe that the accused had committed an offence punishable with death to transportation for life and when the case had been committed under sec. 302 the learned Sessions Judge should have held that there was a case under sec. 302 against the accused and under sec. 497 Cr. P. C. bail was improperly granted to the accused by the court of the City Magistrate. On merits, it is contended, the learned Sessions Judge also could not have come to a contrary conclusion that there were no reasonable grounds for believing that the accused had committed an offence punishable with death or transportation for life when the accused had already been committed to his court by the committing Magistrate under the charge of murder. The counsel on the opposite side has replied that the learned Sessions Judge did not hear the arguments of both the sides and after giving the weight to the evidence he made an order under sec. 498 Cr. P. C. releasing the accused on bail. The provisions of sec. 498 are not limited by the provisions of sec. 497 Cr. P. C.

3. It may be observed that when the learned City Magistrate committed the accused persons under a charge of murder it cannot be said that the same court could have come to the conclusion that there were no reasonable grounds to hold that the accused had committed an offence punishable with death or transportation for life. A case is committed to Sessions only when there are grounds to believe that at least there is a prima facie case against the accused. In this view of the matter, the order of the City Magistrate granting bail to the accused appears to be contrary to the provisions of sec. 497 Cr. P. C. The exceptions given in the section do not apply to this case and obviously when the case was committed under sec. 302 I.P.C. the Magistrate ought to have taken the accused persons in custody. However, that stage of the case is now over and it is not necessary to go back to that position of the case. The case has been committed to the court of Sessions and on an application made on behalf of the accused the learned Sessions Judge has made an order in this behalf which is being impugned in this revision. Even though it can be said that the court of the committing Magistrate could not commit the case under sec. 302 and at the same time hold that there were no reasonable grounds to believe that the accused had committed an offence punishable with death or transportation for life, yet the same cannot be said against the learned Sessions Judge, because it is not necessary for the Sessions Judge to concede with the opinion of the committing Magistrate as regards the point regarding the existence of the reason able grounds to believe that the accused had committed an offence punishable with death o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document