Skip to content


Shonthong Kuki and ors. Vs. Manipur Administration - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
Subject;Criminal
CourtGuwahati High Court
Decided On
Judge
AppellantShonthong Kuki and ors.
RespondentManipur Administration
Prior history
T.N.R. Tirumalpad, J.C.
1. The petitioners herein were arrested on 18-5-1963 In connection with a F.I.R. Case No. 72 (1) / 1961 of the Imphal Police Station under Section 395/397 I.P.C. In the T.I.R., the name of the petitioners were not mentioned. For more than two years after the F.I.R. was registered, the Police did not take any action against any of the petitioners, It was stated that on 16-5-1963, the petitioners 2 to 6 made an extra-judicial confession before some villagers in which they
Excerpt:
- - then, they moved the sessions judge and the sessions judge was satisfied that this was a fit case in which ball should be granted and he accordingly directed them to one released on bail on their personal bond for rs. 1,500/- each supported by two sureties each torn a like amount. wanted in connection with any other case'.this revision petition is filed against that said sentence which would have the effect at continuing then jail custody for a period of two weeks from 27-6-1963. 2. it was argued for the 'petitioners that when the sessions judge was satisfied that it was a tit case where bail should be granted and actually directed their release on bail, lie for no power to direct further that they snail be in custody for a period of two weeks from the date of his order. 3. one is..........moved before the additional. district magistrate. but he rejected the mil. then, they moved the sessions judge and the sessions judge was satisfied that this was a fit case in which ball should be granted and he accordingly directed them to one released on bail on their personal bond for rs. 1,500/- each supported by two sureties each torn a like amount. this order was made on 27-6-1963. but he added in his order that 'they shall be released after two week from that date unless. wanted in connection with any other case'. this revision petition is filed against that said sentence which would have the effect at continuing then jail custody for a period of two weeks from 27-6-1963.2. it was argued for the 'petitioners that when the sessions judge was satisfied that it was a tit case.....
Judgment:

T.N.R. Tirumalpad, J.C.

1. The petitioners herein were arrested on 18-5-1963 In connection with a F.I.R. Case No. 72 (1) / 1961 of the Imphal Police Station under Section 395/397 I.P.C. In the T.I.R., the name of the petitioners were not mentioned. For more than two years after the F.I.R. was registered, the Police did not take any action against any of the petitioners, It was stated that on 16-5-1963, the petitioners 2 to 6 made an extra-judicial confession before some villagers in which they Implicated the first petitioner also. Then the petitioners were arrested on 18-5-1963. petitioners 6 (deny that they made any such confession. It was turner stated that a few days after the arrest, some clones said to be part of the booty in the acuity where seize from the 'houses of petitioners 2 and 3. They state that the clothes he longed to them. It appears that there was T.I. Parade, but none of the petitioners were identified. It is in this situation that ball was moved before The additional. District Magistrate. But he rejected the Mil. then, they moved the Sessions Judge and the Sessions Judge was satisfied that this was a fit case in which ball should be granted and he accordingly directed them to one released on bail on their personal bond for Rs. 1,500/- each supported by two sureties each torn a like amount. this order was made on 27-6-1963. But he added in his order that 'they shall be released after two week from that date unless. wanted in connection with any other case'. This Revision Petition is filed against that said sentence which would have the effect at continuing then Jail custody for a period of two weeks from 27-6-1963.

2. It was argued for the 'petitioners that when the Sessions Judge was satisfied that it was a tit case where bail should be granted and actually directed their release on bail, lie for no power to direct further that they snail be in custody for a period of two weeks from the date of his order. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the State was also not able to justify that portion of the order of the Sessions Judge.

3. One is not able to understand why the sessions Judge put off the release on bail for a period out two wee when tie was satisfied that it was a fit case were Nan should be granted to the petitioners. He- has not given any reason why he considered It necessary to put off the release by two weeks. He has stated in his order than investigation against the petitioners was almost complete; that recovery of some gun was expected' and that one absconding accused had yet to be arrested. Patinas, the-Sessions Judge thought that the Police should be given time to complete the investigation and to recover the gun and to arrest the absconding accused and What during was time the petitioners should not be enlarged on bail, if that was the intention of the Sessions Judge, the proper thing for him to do was to refuse bail on tie application-and to direct the petitioners to come up again after period of two weeks. The order of the Sessions judge will virtually amount to present rejection to their bail application, and to granting of bail at the end of two-weeks without a fresh petition. This was the argument to the learned Government Advocate. But if that was the intention of the Sessions Judge, he should have espresso ft in proper language and he should not have stated) that this was a fit case in which bail snowed be granted at the time when the investigation was not complete and we-recovery of the gun was expected and the absconding accused had not teen arrested.

4. The normal rule is that an order for release on bail should take effect Immediately, if the Sessions Judge was of the opinion that bail should not be granted immediately, but only at some rater date, the proper order for him to pass was one of rejection of the) bail application. Section 498 Cr.P.C. does not give power to the Sessions Judge when he is satisfied- that it is a fit case for grant of bail, to put off the release on bail by an) period. A bail application should be dearth with in the light of the circumstances existing at the time when ft is moved in Court. If the Court thinks it is a fit case torn grant of bail, it has to order bail immediately and any further detention in jail will tie illegal and a mart cannot order further detention for any period while granting bail. It is for the Court to decide whether it will grant ban or whether it will reject it. If it grants the bail, it must take effect immediately. No decision of any High Court has teen brought to my notice which would permit an order to the kind passed by the Sessions judge putting aft the release by two weeks when granting bait.

5. As the Sessions' Judge was satisfied that It was a tit case where bait should be- granted to the petitioners, the said order will stand. But his- further order that 'they shall be released after two weeks from- that date unless wanted in connection with, any other case' was cherty beyond his powers and hence that portion, of the order is set aside and it is directed that the bail order passed the sessions Judge shall take effect from the date of me order, namely, 27-6-1963.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //