The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court found the Judicial Magistrate had acted in undue haste in granting bail to the accused and that the conduct of the Deputy Commissioner and the Sub Divisional Magistrate raised suspicion.

T.H.B.Chalapathi, J.

1. This application is filed under Section 482 of the code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 18.1.1997 and also to take action against respondents 2 to 5.

2. According to the petitioner on 13.1.1997 the 4th respondent Kashmiri Lal Malhotra, who is in employment of the Government, caused a grievous injury to the petitioner, who is the President of the Municipal Committee. The petitioner lodge an FIR No. 12 dated 13.1.1997 which was registered by the Police under section 325 I.P.C. instead of section 333 IPC. The 4th respondent was arrested by the Investigating Officer namely the 5th respondent who moved an application to the Illaqa Magistrate for obtaining police remand and the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jagadhari, by his order dated 17.1.1997 remanded the 4th respondent to police custody for a period of two days and directed the police to produce him in the Court on 19.1.1997 and the bail application was ordered to be put up before him on 25.1.1997. It is further alleged that after police remand on 17.1.1997, the 3rd respondent namely Ms Neerja, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jagadhari, visited the Police Station, Sadhaura and met the accused, respondent No. 4 in this case and talked to him. Thereafter she contacted the Deputy Commissioner, Jagadhari also on telephone and she also summoned the mother of the petitioner at about 10 P.M. in the night to the Rest House to put pressure on the petitioners family for withdrawing the case and the 4th respondent was produced at 12-05 A.M. in the mid night before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jagadhri, who passed the order dated 18.1.1997 and released the accused. It is pertinent to extract the order of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jagadhri, which reads as under :

"Accused has been produced at 12.05 hours at night at my residence. Heard. Police did not rind a prima facie case against the accused for commission of all offence punishable under Section 467 I.P.C. Offence punishable under Section 325 I.P.C. is bailable, hence the accused is admitted to bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- with one surety in the like amount. Bail bond furnished, accepted and attested. Accused be released in this case. For further proceeds, the accused to attend the Court of Ld. Ilaqa Magistrate on 20.1.1993 and to send these papers there immediately."

3. From the reading of the order itself, it is clear that the accused was produced before the Judicial Magistrate Ist. Class, Jagadhri at 12-05 at night at his residence. It also shows that the police did not find a prima facie case against the accused for the commission of offence and he released the accused on bail. I do not find any such urgency which required the Magistrate to pass the order granting bail to the accused in the midnight. I have no manner of doubt that the learned Judicial Magistrate passed the order granting bail to the accused in undue haste. When the bail matter was already fixed for 25.1.1997 the Judicial Magistrate should have directed the police to produce the accused on the next day in the Court as per the order dated 17.1.1997. It is not a case where Section 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or Article 22 of the Constitution of India has been violated. I do not find any valid reason for granting bail even without there being any bail application before the Judicial Magistrate.

4. The conduct of the Deputy Commissioner and the Sub Divisional Magistrate raises a suspicion in the mind of the Court.

5. However, as stated in the reply, the 4th respondent was not produced before the Duty Magistrate at the instances of the 2nd respondent and the Police filed a cancellation report in the Court on 6.3.1998 in FIR No. 12 dated 15.1.1997 and the petitioner had objected to the same and the learned Judicial Magistrate, Jagadhri by his order dated 20.3.1999 did not agree with the cancellation report and has taken the said Kashmiri Lal into custody and directed him t