The court held that a magistrate lacks jurisdiction to grant or revoke bail for offenses triable exclusively by the Sessions Court, rendering such orders void.

ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 438 & 442 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘the BNSS ’) seeking quashment of the order dated 06.05.2025 passed by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pargi, Vikarabad District, in Crime No. 94 of 2025 of Chengomul Police Station, Vikarabad District. 2. The revision petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 5 in Crime No. 94 of 2025 facing accusations for the offence punishable under Section

310(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘the BNS ’).

3. I have heard Ms. N. Vani Sri, learned counsel, representing Dr. Challa Srinivas Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent-State.

4. The relevant facts, briefly stated, are that the prosecution initially invoked Section 307 of the BNS against the petitioners in the Remand Case Diary. Acting upon this, the trial Court/Magistrate registered a case under Section 307 BNS and, while granting bail, expressly observed that the offence had been rightly registered under that provision. However, during the course of investigation, the prosecution filed a memo seeking alteration of the charge from Section 307 to Section 310 (2) BNS . Despite this, while considering bail, the prosecution failed to bring this alteration to the notice of the Court. Consequently, the trial Court, without observing the change, granted bail. The prosecution has since contended that by misrepresenting the applicable provision as Section 307 instead of Section 310 (2) BNS , which is an offence exclusively triable by the Court of Session, the Magistrate acted without jurisdiction in granting bail. Accordingly, the Court revoked the earlier bail order on that ground.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, even if the complaint averments are accepted in their entirety, the application of Section 310 (2) BNS is unwarranted and legally unsustainable. It is further argued that the Magistrate, in granting bail, failed to exercise the jurisdiction properly with reference to the materials placed before the Court. Learned counsel contends that even assuming the offence is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, once bail had been granted, the Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to recall or revoke the bail order. While the initial grant of bail may itself have been irregular, the subsequent revocation compounds the error, as the Magistrate is not vested with such power. On these grounds, indulgence of this Court has been sought.

6. In reply, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the position of law is clear. In a case triable exclusively by the Sessions Court, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to grant bail in the first instance. Since the earlier grant of bail was without jurisdiction, the subsequent revocation of that order amounts merely to a rectification of a legal error. Accordingly, no illegality can be attributed to the impugned order. The prosecution, therefore, prays for dismissal of the present petition.

7. I have perused the materials on record.

8. Section 310 (2) of the BNS prescribes the punishment for dacoity, which may extend to imprisonment for life. The offence is triable exclusively by the Court of Session. Although Sections 478–480 of the BNS S (corresponding to Sections 436–437 of the CrPC) vest Magistrates with limited discretion to grant bail in non-bailable offences, the Supreme Court in Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT of Delhi (2001) held that where the offence is punishable with death or life imprisonment, Magistrates should ordinarily refrain from exercising such discretion and must refer the matter to the Sessions Court or the High Cour