John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.
1. This is a reference made by the Sessions Judge of Satara, in which he asks us to set aside an order made by the Honorary First Class Magistrate, Satara, cancelling the bail bond of the accused.
2. The facts are that the accused was charged under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code, and he was brought before the Court of the First Class City Magistrate, Satara, and that learned Magistrate released him on bail on his own recognizance and the bond of two sureties, the conditions of the bond being that the accused should attend at the Court of the City Magistrate, First Class, on every day of the preliminary inquiry into the offence charged against him, and should the case be sent for trial to the Sessions Court or to any other Court, he should appear before that Court. The case was then transferred from the Court of the City Magistrate to that of the Honorary Magistrate, which I will assume is a different Court. In the course of the trial by the Honorary Magistrate the prosecution applied to cancel the bail bond on the ground that the accused had been found tampering with witnesses, and the learned Magistrate recorded a judgment in which he said that the accused had been actually caught red handed tampering with one of the principal prosecution witnesses, and accordingly the learned Magistrate cancelled the bail bond, and directed the accused to be taken into Magisterial custody. An application in revision was then made to the Sessions Judge, and the learned Sessions Judge considered that the Honorary Magistrate had no power to cancel the bail bond and he referred the case to this Court for action. His view is that the case does not fall within Section 497(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code, which provides that a High Court or Court of Session and, in the case of a person released by itself, any other Court may cause any person who has been released under that section to be arrested and may commit him to custody. The learned Sessions Judge says that the power can only be exercised by the High Court or Court of Session or by the Court which released the accused on bail, which latter Court, in this case, was the Court of the First Class City Magistrate and not the Court of the First Class Honorary Magistrate.
3. I am unable to agree with the view of the learned Sessions Judge. In my opinion every Judge or Magistrate trying a criminal case has inherent power to see that the trial is properly conducted and that the ends of justice are not defeated, and if facts are brought to its attention, which suggest that unless the person who is being tried is placed under arrest the ends of justice will be defeated, the Court has inherent power to direct his arrest. In the present case the learned Magistrate was satisfied that the accused person had been tampering with a prosecution witness, and in order to prevent a repetition of the offence I think that the learned Magistrate was entitled to direct that the accused be arrested notwithstanding the order for his release on bail. It is no answer to say, as the learned Sessions Judge does, that an application could be made to the1 Sessions Court or the High Court, because those Courts might not be available in an emergency to make an immediate order.
4. In my judgment, therefore, the order of the learned Magistrate was right, and the order made by the learned Sessions Judge releasing the accused on bail was wrong. We, therefore, set aside the order of the learned Sessions Judge, and restore the order of the Honorary First Class Magistrate.
5. I agree.