Skip to content


Emperor Vs. Musammat Bashiran and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1923All479; 83Ind.Cas.483
AppellantEmperor
RespondentMusammat Bashiran and ors.
Cases ReferredImperatrix v. Sadashi
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), sections 439, 497 - bail in nonbailable offences--high court, interference by--notice to opposite party. - - his interpretation of the law is that all persons accused of non-bailable offences should be released on bail unless and until the court is satisfied that there are good grounds for believing them to be guilty......is an application in revision by the district magistrate, aligarh, to set aside an order allowing bail to bashiran, begam and masita on a murder charge. it is open to this court to set aside such an order under the provisions of section 497 (3) and section 439 of the code of criminal procedure [imperatrix v. sadashi v. narayan 22 b. 549 : 11 ind dec. (n.s.) 947] but notice must first issue to the parties. let notice go to bashiran, begam and masita to show cause why the order admitting them to bail should not be set aside.2. after the above notices were served mr. justice stuart passed the following3. notices served on bashiran, begam and masita. they are absent and unrepresented. the facts are these. these three persons have been challaned by the police on a charge of murder under.....
Judgment:

Stuart, J.

1. This is an application in revision by the District Magistrate, Aligarh, to set aside an order allowing bail to Bashiran, Begam and Masita on a murder charge. It is open to this Court to set aside such an order under the provisions of Section 497 (3) and Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [Imperatrix v. Sadashi v. Narayan 22 B. 549 : 11 Ind Dec. (N.S.) 947] but notice must first issue to the parties. Let notice go to Bashiran, Begam and Masita to show cause why the order admitting them to bail should not be set aside.

2. After the above notices were served Mr. Justice Stuart passed the following

3. Notices served on Bashiran, Begam and Masita. They are absent and unrepresented. The facts are these. These three persons have been challaned by the Police on a charge of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Panal Code and other charges. There is considerable evidence against them. The offence of murder is, of course, non-bailable. The Magistrate admitted them to bail. He states that when he passed that order he had no knowledge of the facts one way or another. His interpretation of the law is that all persons accused of non-bailable offences should be released on bail unless and until the Court is satisfied that there are good grounds for believing them to be guilty. This view is absolutely mistaken. Persons accused of non-bailable offences should not be released on bail as a rule, but they may be so released if there are reasons for believing that the case against them is such that it is not likely to succeed, or if there are special circumstances justifying bail. The view of the Magistrate is opposed to the law. In this case there was nothing which justified the release of these three persons on bail, and there was every reason why bail should be refused. Under the provisions of sections 4.39 and 497 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure I set aside the order admitting Bashiran, Begam and Masita to bail, and direct them to be arrested, and committed to custody during the proceedings in the Magistrate's Court; This order will not prejudice a subsequent application to the Magistrate to admit them to bail if sufficient cause under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure be found at any future date.


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