Gorey Lal and Others vs State

B.R. James, J.—The applicants were tried by a Sessions Judge for offences u/s 307 and other sections of the Indian Penal Code, found guilty and sentenced to imprisonment. They appealed to this Court, but their appeal was dismissed and they were taken into custody. Subsequently they filed a petition under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution for the grant of a certificate of fitness to appeal to the Supreme Court, and their petition was granted. They have now duly lodged their appeal in the Supreme Court. By the present application they pray for the grant of bail for the pendency of their appeal in that Court.

I am firmly of opinion that the High Court has no jurisdiction to grant bail in such a case. The Privy Council in AIR 1945 94 (Privy Council) have ruled that Sections 496, 497 and 498, Cr. P.C. do not apply to convicted person while Section. 561-A merely safeguards all existing inherent powers possessed by a High Court and does not confer any new powers.

Section 426 is the only provision of the Code which applies to convicted persons. Sub-section (1) and (2) of that section give the applicants no help for the simple reason that their appeal to this Court has already been disposed of. Sub-Section (2-A) is not applicable since their offence is a non-bailable one. There remains Sub-section (2-B). But that is strictly confined to those convicted persons who have been granted special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, a contingency covered exclusively by Article 136 of the Constitution and not by Article 134(1) which governs the present case or Article 132(1). These views flow from the principles laid down in the case of AIR 1945 94 (Privy Council) . So far as the applicants are concerned, this Court has become functus officio, and the Supreme Court alone can grant them the relief of bail.

Holding therefore that the High Court has no jurisdiction to enlarge the applicants on bail, I dismiss this application.