Accused applicants cannot use the same bail bonds and sureties for an added offence without surrendering before the court, especially when the added offence is triable by the Court of Sessions.

Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.:—

Having heard learned Counsel for the applicants petitioners on the urgency application, the same is allowed.

2. By way of filing this petition under Section 482 CrPC, the applicants petitioners have sought direction from this Court to the learned Magistrate, Roorkee to grant them bail for the added offence of Section 308 IPC on the same bail bonds and sureties, which they furnished in the court earlier at the time of releasing them on bail for the offences under Section 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 325, 504 & 506 IPC in Crime No. 127/2011 pertaining to Police Station Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar. The prayer has also been made to quash the chargesheet and to stay the further proceedings before the court below till the adjudication of this petition by this Court.

3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that an FIR was lodged against the accused applicants on 12.6.2011 for the offences punishable under Section 147, 148, 149, 323, 452, 504 & 506 IPC. They were granted bail vide order dated 28.6.2011 by the Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee for the said offences on furnishing two sureties and bail bond of like amount i.e. rupees fifteen thousand by each one of them. But after investigation and taking note of the serious injuries caused to the victims, the Investigation Officer submitted the chargesheet against all these applicants/accused persons also for the offence punishable Section 308 IPC, in addition to the above offences. Thereafter the applicants neither surrendered themselves nor moved any fresh bail application, rather they filed an application through their Advocate without putting their personal appearance, much less surrender, before the court below seeking that their personal bonds and sureties should also be accepted for the added offence of Section 308 IPC. The court below rejected the application of the accused applicants vide the impugned order dated 17.1.2012. Hence, this petition has been filed with the prayers stated above.

4. It has been vociferously contended by the learned Counsel for the accused applicants that once the bail has been granted to the accused under whatever sections, indicating the offences even if bailable in nature, then after submission of the chargesheet by the Investigation Officer under a graver offence does not require the accused applicants to seek further bail for such an added offence. Learned Counsel has relied upon a precedent of this Court rendered by a learned Single Judge in Jamil v. State of Uttaranchal, reported in 2005 (3) U.C. 1698. In the said case, the learned Single Judge was of the view that once an accused has been granted bail in a criminal case, he need not to file fresh bail application for grant of bail in another added section which though seems to be graver than the offence under which he was granted bail earlier and, accordingly, the learned Judge directed the court concerned to permit the applicants to furnish fresh surety bond without requiring them to file fresh bail application.

5. Learned Counsel has also relied upon following three precedents rendered by learned Single Judge of this Court:

(i) Subhash & Others v. State of Uttarakhand & Another, 2010 (1) N.C.C. 621.

(ii) Vijendra & Another v. State of Uttarakhand & Another, Criminal Writ Petition No. 937 of 2009, order passed on 8.12.2009.

(iii) Mustaqeem & Others v. State of Uttarakhand & Another, Criminal Writ Petition No. 924 of 2009, decided on 3.12.2009.

6. In all these three precedents almost similar view has been expressed by the same learned Single Judge of this Court except that the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to grant bail where the offence is punishable with life imprisonment or death penalty saving the exception as enunciated under Section 437 (Provisos) of the CrPC.

7. Having regard to the views expressed by learned Single Judges of this Court in different cases, it is pertinent to mention the observation of Hon’ble Apex Court made in case of Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document