Back
1984 Supreme(Ori) 115
High Court Of Orissa
B. K. Behera
DANDAPANI ROUT - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF ORISSA - Respondent
Criminal Revision 215 Of 1984
Decided On : 07/20/1984
A.Rath, J.M.MOHANTY, R.SAHA, S.K.SAHU
Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Sections 437(5) and 439(2)-Scope of-High Court or Session Court may cancel bail under Section 439(2), whereas Magistrate under Section 437(5)-In instant case -Some accused persons released on anticipatory bail by High Court, whereas other accused persons released on bail by Court of Session–Officer in-charge of police station moved application for cancellation of bail-Ground-Accused persons violated conditions of bail bonds-Magistrate cancelled bail and issued non-bail able warrants of arrest-Two of accused persons arrested-Petition under Section 482 filed for quashing Magistrate's order -Could Magistrate cancel bail? (No) Bail was not granted by him.-Should Magistrate observe principles of natural justice? (Yes)-He could not cancel bail without affording opportunity to accused persons of being heard-Result-Warrants of arrest ordered to be recalled forthwith and bail granted to two accused persons taken in custody. (Paras 4 to 7)
B. K. BEHERA, J.
( 1 ) THE petitioners are the accused persons in G. R. Case No. 25 of 1984 in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Banpur. Some of the petitioners were released on anticipatory bail by this Court and the other petitioners were released on bail by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Khurda, exercising the power of the Court of Session under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, the Code ). On an application made by the Officer-in- charge of the police station stating that the petitioners had violated the conditions of the bail bonds, the learned Magistrate cancelled the bail and directed issue of non-bailable warrants of arrest against the petitioners. This order is sought to be quashed in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court.
( 2 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Rath, the learned Additional Standing Counsel.
( 3 ) THE inherent jurisdiction of this Court is to be exercised in rare and exceptional cases and in the interests of justice.
( 4 ) IN the instant case, bail has been cancelled on an application made by the Officerincharge of the police station without affording an opportunity to the petitioners to show cause and of being heard.
( 5 ) SECTION 439 (2) of the Code provides that a High Court or Court of Session may direct that any person who has been released on bail be arrested and taken to custody. Section 437 (5) of the Code provides; Any Court which bas released a person on bail under sub-section (1) or non-subsection (2), may, if it considers it necessary so to do, direct that such person be arrested and commit him to custody. The learned Magistrate could cancel bail under sub-section (5) of Section 4j7 of the Code if he had granted bail to the petitioners. As bail had been granted by this Court and the Court of Session, the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to cancel it under Section 437 (5) of the Code.
( 6 ) I would accordingly allow the revision and quash the impugned order. The non-bailable warrants of arrest issued against the petitioners shall be recalled forthwith.
( 7 ) IT has been brought to my notice that two of the petitioners, namely, petitioner No. 6 Prafulla Behera and petitioner No. 8 Adikanda Behera, have been arrested and are in custody after execution of the warrants of arrest issued against them. Each of the two petitioners is to be released on a bail of Rs. 1,000/- (rupees one thousand) with one surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Banpur.
.
