P. V. DIXIT, C. J.

( 1 ) THIS reference arises out of a revision petition against an order dated 21st september 1962 of the Additional District Magistrate of Seoni upholding an order of the first class Magistrate, Seoni, granting anticipatory bail to Narayan Prasad jaiswal in a case registered against him in respect of offences under Sections 324, 452, 294, and 506 (second part) I. P. C. on a report made in Seoni - Poilce Station by one Komal Singh on 19th July 1962.

( 2 ) THE report of Komal Singh was to the effect that a few days prior to 19th July 1962 he had accompanied the Excise Sub-Inspector when he seized some liquor from a jeep-car of Narayan Prasad; and that on account of this Narayan Prasad bore a grudge against him and on 19th July 1962 caught hold of him in the mahakoshal Garailthily abused him, attacked him with a dagger and also threatened to kill him. On 21st July 1962, Narayan Prasad presented an application before the Second Class Magistrate styling it as one "in the matter of grant of amicipatory bail under Section 496 Cr. P. C. ", stating therein that on a report made by Komal Singh a case has been registered against him by the Police under Section 324 and 452 I. P. C. , that he was a respectable citizen of Seoni owning considerable property, that there was no danger of his absconding or leaving the jurisdiction of the Court, and praying that he be released on bail. Narayan Prasad appeared in person before the First Class Magistrate, Shri Arya, when the application was taken up for disposal after notice to the Police. The learned Magistrate perused the Police diary and observed that-" it is evident from the case diary that the accused is suspected of the commission of an offence. At this stage it would be too premature to conclude for what particular offence the accused would be charge-sheeted. Hence at present I am to be guided by the matter as it stands at present. A consideration of the facts constituting the First Information report is of paramount importance in ascertaining the nature of the offence alleged to have been committed by the accused and such consideration leads to the conclusion that the accused at present can at the most be said to be guilty of the offences falling within the ambit of sections 324 and 294 I. P. C. Both these offences are bailable. " he then overruled the objections made by the Police Prosecutor to the grant of bail and ordered that "in the matter of the offence registered in the Station House, seoni, as Crime No. 172 on the basis of the report of Komal Singh, the accused narayan Prasad is granted ban of Rs. 500/-with one solvent security in the like amount" (sic ). A copy of this order was-sent by the Magistrate to the Station house Officer, Seoni, for information. The State then preferred a revision petition in the Court of the Additional District Magistrate, Shri Acharya, contending that as a matter of law "anticipatory bail" could not be granted to Narayan Prssad and even if it could be there were no valid grounds for enlarging Narayan Prasad on bail. The learned Additional District Magistrate rejected the revision petition taking the view that according to the decision in Abdul Karim Khan v. State of Madhya pradesh, AIR 1960 Madh Pra 54 anticipatory bail could be grantees in suitable cases, and agreeing with the reasons given by Shri Arya, First Class Magistrate, for releasing Narayan Prasad on bail. Thereupon the State filed the revision petition giving rise to this reference. When the revision petition first came up for hearing before our learned brother naik J. , he formed the opinion that on the question of anticipatory bail, which was of Sequent occurrence, conflicting views have been expressed by this Court in State v. Hasan Mohammad, AIR 1951 Nag 471 and AIR 1960 Madh Pra 54 and that it was, therefore, necessary and desirable that the question should be authoritatively determined by a Division Bench of this Court, In AIR 1951 Nag 471 hemeon J. approved the decis

Click Here to Read the rest of this document