Skip to content


Hukum Singh Milap Singh Vs. State of Ajmer - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1954CriLJ1232
AppellantHukum Singh Milap Singh
RespondentState of Ajmer
Cases ReferredState of Kutch v. Aher Vasta Hadhu
Excerpt:
- section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect -..........50 (a) and urges that as this court issued the warrant of arrest, it has the power to admit hukam singh to bail. in the case relied upon the court's powers under section 561-a, criminal p. c. were exercised. the facts of the present case are different. in the case relied upon, the appeal was pending before the judicial commissioner and the warrant had been issued under section 427, criminal p. c. there can be no doubt that the court which directed the issue of the warrant has power to admit to bail the person sought to be arrested or to reduce the amount of the securities demanded. if the power was delegated to a subordinate officer, that does not mean that the court was divested of the power initially possessed by it.in the present case, however, the warrant has been issued not under.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Nigam, J.C.

1. Hukam Singh was acquitted by this Court of a charge under Section 302/34, I.P.C. and other offences. An appeal against that acquittal has been admitted by the Hon'ble supreme Court. An application under Order 45, Rule 5, and Order 6, Rule 1, of the Supreme Court Rules read with Article 142(1) and (2) of the Constitution was made praying for the issue of direction to this Court to get Hukam Singh arrested and detained or released on bail. On 23-12-1953, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to direct as follows:

The Judicial Commissioner of Ajmer will issue a warrant directing the respondent to be brought before the appropriate Court either to be detained pending the disposal of the appeal in this Court or to be admitted to bail to the satisfaction of such Court.

2. Thereupon a warrant was issued by this Court on 25-12-1953 directing the arrest of the said Hukam Singh and his production before the District Magistrate, Ajmer. Hukam Singh, it appears, was arrested on 26-124953 and was directed to be released on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 30,000/- with two sureties in the like amount. He has not been able to furnish the securities required of him and is still under detention. He has now filed this application under Section 498 read with Section 561-A, Criminal P. C. for reduction of the amount of the securities demanded by the learned District Magistrate. I have heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

3. It is conceded by the learned Counsel for the applicant that Section 498, Criminal P. O. does not apply. The learned Counsel has referred me to - 'State of Kutch v. Aher Vasta Hadhu' AIR 1953 Kutch 50 (A) and urges that as this Court issued the warrant of arrest, it has the power to admit Hukam Singh to bail. In the case relied upon the Court's powers under Section 561-A, Criminal P. C. were exercised. The facts of the present case are different. In the case relied upon, the appeal was pending before the Judicial Commissioner and the warrant had been issued under Section 427, Criminal P. C. There can be no doubt that the Court which directed the issue of the warrant has power to admit to bail the person sought to be arrested or to reduce the amount of the securities demanded. If the power was delegated to a subordinate officer, that does not mean that the Court was divested of the power initially possessed by it.

In the present case, however, the warrant has been issued not under Section 427, Criminal P. C., but under Order 45, Rule 5, of the Supreme Court Rules read with Article 142 of the Constitution, i.e., under the inherent powers of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. This Court can, therefore, exercise powers only if any powers are delegated to it. As I read it the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed this Court to Issue a warrant directing the production of the accused before the appropriate Court and delegated the power of accepting bail to the 'appropriate Court'. When issuing the warrant, I have already held that the 'appropriate Court' is the Court of the District Magistrate. It, therefore, follows that the power to admit to bail has been delegated to the Court of the District Magistrate and not to this Court. The exercise of that power can be revised only by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as the warrant was issued under its Inherent powers. This Court, I am of opinion, has no powers of interference with the exercise of the discretion by the District Magistrate.

4. Accordingly, I am unable to entertain this application and reject it.


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