The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory nature of bail for bailable offences, the discretion of the court in granting bail for non-bailable offences, and the obligation to uphold personal liberty by releasing individuals on bail for bailable offences.

R.S. Garg, J.

1. On a report made by Second Addl. Sessions Judge, Raigarh, Criminal Case No. 64/2000 has been registered by the Judicial Magistrate First Class (Shri A.B. Toppo). The proceedings dated 9-2-2000 of the said criminal case record that a complaint was filed in the said Court by the Second Addl. Sessions Judge, Raigarh for offences punishable under Sections 205, 419, 465 and 471 read with Section 109 of the IPC. The allegations were that the present applicant committed some forgery by producing a false surety in the Court. Accused Mohitram and Kaushal Prasad were kept present in the Court and immediately after taking the cognizance the said two persons namely Kaushal Prasad and Mohitram were taken in custody and were sent to jail. Against V.K. Pradhan a non-bailable warrant was directed to be issued. On 10-2-2000 an application for grant of bail was submitted on behalf of present applicant Mohitram Chauhan. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Raigarh Shri A.B. Toppo rejected the application observing that all the accused either in connivance or in criminal conspiracy created the false documents and submitted bogus security before the Second Addl. Sessions Judge. The learned Judge rejected the application without even looking to the provisions of law. The applicant thereafter made an application under Section 439, Cr.P.C. before the Court of Sessions. The said application was heard and decided by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh, Shri Ajit Singh who by his order dated 17-2-2000 passed in bail case No. 114/2000 rejected the application observing that as the accused had taken active part in commission of the said offence the case before him was not a fit case for grant of bail. As applicant's application was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, he has filed this petition in this Court.

2. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that present appears to be a case of judicial atrocities where on a complaint made by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, learned Magistrate First Class took cognizance of the matter and without affording any opportunity to the applicant, straight way sent him to jail. According to him the application for release of the applicant on bail could not be rejected by the Judicial Magistrate First Class on 10-2-2000 nor the application could be rejected by the Second Addl. Sessions Judge on 17-2-2000. According to him offences with which the applicant is charged are all bailable and when the accused was ready and willing to furnish the bonds/surety bond, the Court had no jurisdiction to take him in judicial custody and send him to jail or reject his application. His further submission is that the learned Second Addl. Sessions Judge did not try to see the provisions of law and simply rejected the application observing that the allegations were of serious nature.

3. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand submits that no offence was registered at police station therefore, he does not have case diary. He has however produced the copies of the proceedings which were obtained by the police from the said Court.

4. The complaint dated 9-2-2000 is available in the documents filed by the learned counsel for the State. The said documents also contain the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 64/2000 recorded between 9-2-2000 to 8-5-2000. It appears from these proceedings that cognizance of the complaint was taken on the date of the submission of the complaint itself i.e., 9-2-2000.

5. A perusal of the complaint submitted by the Second Addl. Sessions Judge, Raigarh Shri A.K. Samant Rai would show that he was of the opinion that offences punishable under Sections 205, 419, 465 and 471 read with Section 109, IPC were made out. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class took cognizance in the matter in relation to offences punishable under Sections 205, 419, 465 and 471 read with Section 109, IPC. It appears that alongwith the complaint, copy of the proceedings dated 9