Bail granted under technical grounds can be cancelled upon commitment to Sessions court, and it doesn't prevent further merit-based bail applications.

1. These two connected revisions are directed against the orders dated 13-9-1975 and 26-9-1975 passed by the Sessions Judge of Bareilly ordering that the applicant Prem Charan, Lekhraj and Ram Autar (Bail Application No. 1550 of 1975) and applicant Ram Swarup (Bail Application No. 1710 of 1975) be released on bail merely on the technical ground that the charge sheets under S.302/201, IPC. had not been submitted within sixty days as provided under S.167(2), Cr. P.C. The learned Sessions Judge made it clear that bail was also allowed on this technical ground only and he further observed that the Magistrate shall take proper action in the light of the observation of the Hon'ble Court at the stage of committal. Reference was made to the High Court Division Bench decision in the case of Laxmi Brahman v. State , (1975) 1 All LR 439 : 1975 All WC 369 : (1976 CriLJ 118). The applicants were aggrieved by this direction given by the Sessions Judge and so filed these revisions.

2. Learned counsel for the applicants has raised two contentions in these cases. Firstly, he has argued that the detention of the accused is illegal after the expiry of sixty days when no charge sheet had been submitted and no bail was granted to them in spite of an application having been made and as such the learned Magistrate had no power to remand the accused persons to custody under S.209(b), Cr. P.C. His second contention is that bail once granted, on whatsoever ground can be cancelled under S.437(5) or S.439(2), Cr. P.C. only on the established principles, such as there are chances of jumping bail, threatening or influencing witnesses, interfering with the investigation or prosecution, obstructing judicial process or otherwise misusing or abusing the bail. In support of the second contention he has placed reliance on the case of Ram Murti v. State (1975) All WC 479 : (1976 CriLJ 211). In that case bail was cancelled by the Sessions Judge under S.439(2), Cr. P.C. and the accused was not remanded to custody by the Magistrate at the time of commitment under S.209(b), Cr. P.C. Moreover, the judgement in Laxmi Brahman's case (1976 Cri LJ 118) (All) cited above was not before the learned Single Judge at that time. Learned counsel for the applicants has drawn my attention to an order dated 10-10-1975 passed in Cr. Revision No. 1125 of 1975 (All) by Hari Swarup, J. (who has decided the case of Ram Murti cited above) referring the following points to a larger Bench after he had considered the case of Laxmi Brahman. The points referred to are : (1) Whether an accused who has been granted bail by the Magistrate has to be remanded to custody by him on the mere circumstances of the case being committed to the court of Sessions ? If not, (2) whether the circumstance of the case being committed to the court of Sessions is by itself a sufficient ground for cancellation of bail granted under S.167(a), Cr. P.C. ? While making this reference, the learned Judge was faced with the decision of a learned single Judge of this Court (Hon'ble K.N. Seth, J.) in the case of Sohanan Singh v. State of U.P. , (1975) 1 All LR 99. In that case the following observations were made.
"There is yet another reason in justification of the order passed by the learned Magistrate. Once he committed the accused persons to stand their trial in the court of Sessions, he became functus officio. The law requires that when an accused is committed to the Court of Sessions, he has to be remanded to custody during the trial. It is for the Court of Sessions or the superior court to direct that the accused be released on bail during the trial." Hari Swarup, J. was of the view that the words 's