Muniswamy vs State of Karnataka

This is a petition under S. 439 of the Cr.P.C. (hereinafter referred to as ''the Code'') for grant of bail.

The petitioner is one of the accused in Crime No. 526 of 1982, pending on the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate II Court, Bangalore City. It is alleged that he along with two other accused, on 27.11.82 at about 7.30 a.m., attempted to cause murder of the complainant Yeshodamma, by assaulting her with a chopper. Thus the petitioner is accused of an offence punishable under S. 307 read with Sec. 34 of the IPC.

The petitioner had approached the learned Magistrate for grant of bail, but without success. The application of the petitioner for grant of bail has been rejected by the learned Magistrate only on the ground that the, offence alleged against the petitioner is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. Consequently, the application has not been considered on merits.

S. 437 of the Code empowers the Court other than the High Court and Court of Session to enlarge a person accused of an offence if he is brought or appears before it. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the Court to find out in a petition for bail as to whether there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner has been guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, if not it has to consider whether the accused person is entitled to be released on bail. Merely because it is stated by the Police that the person is accused of an offence punishable with death or life imprisonment, it does not absolve the responsibility of the Court to examine the petition on merits and to find out whether the petitioner is or is not entitled for a bail. Even, in cases where the charge-sheet is placed for an offence punishable under S. 302 of the IPC, the Court will be perfectly within its jurisdiction to grant bail; if on examination of the facts and circumstances of the case and the material placed before it, is of the opinion that there are no grounds to believe that the accused person has been guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life; and there is no other reason to decline a bail. Of course, the grant of bail is a discretion. But, it is a judicial discretion. It is the duty of the Court subordinate to the High Court to aid and assist the High Court in exercise of its power and discharge of its duties in the administration of justice. Apart from the fact that every judicial order must be supported by reasons, it also flows from the duty of the Court below to assist the High Court in the discharge of its functions, to give, reasons for the conclusions it arrives at, so that the High Court must be in a position to satisfy itself whether the order of the learned Magistrate or the Session Judge, as the case may be, is sound and is sustainable.

In the instant case, as it is already pointed out, the learned Magistrate, without going into the merits of the case, has dismissed the, application. Thus, the learned Magistrate has failed to exercise the jurisdiction. Therefore, it is necessary to set aside the order and remit the petition for bail for fresh consideration in the light of the observations made in this order.

Accordingly, the order dated 18.4.1983 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, II Court, Bangalore City, in Crime No. 526/82, is set aside. The application filed by the petitioner for grant of bail is remitted to the learned Magistrate for fresh consideration in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order.

The learned Magistrate, is directed to dispose of the application within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.