Skip to content


Kamla Pandey Vs. the King - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1949CriLJ1009
AppellantKamla Pandey
RespondentThe King
Excerpt:
- .....was found on a search of nageswar's house.2. the petitioner was eventually granted bail by this learned sessions judge, but granted bail upon a condition, namely, that he did not leave the limits of the town of midnapore, had the petitioner been living in midnapore no objection could be taken to this condition. but the petitioner is not an inhabitant of midnaporo, but lived with his family at kharagpur. imposing a condition that he should not leave midnapore is praotically tantamount to refusing bail. how can a man in ordinary oiroumstanoes afford to live at midnapore when his family livod at ebaragpur and in all probability his sole means of livelihood was at ebaragpur? it is suggested that this petitioner has broken this oondition on two occasions; but it appears to me that it is a.....
Judgment:

Harries, C.J.

1. This is a petition for revision of an order of a learned Sessions Judge cancelling the petitioner's bail, The petitioner together with a man named Nageswar were charged with stealing from a railway wagon. Nageswar has been granted bail and he is still on bail, end it is to be observed that the allegation is that certain stolen property was found on a search of Nageswar's house.

2. The petitioner was eventually granted bail by this learned Sessions Judge, but granted bail upon a condition, namely, that he did not leave the limits of the town of Midnapore, Had the petitioner been living in Midnapore no objection could be taken to this condition. But the petitioner is not an inhabitant of Midnaporo, but lived with his family at Kharagpur. Imposing a condition that he should not leave Midnapore is praotically tantamount to refusing bail. How can a man in ordinary oiroumstanoes afford to live at Midnapore when his family livod at Ebaragpur and in all probability his sole means of livelihood was at Ebaragpur? It is suggested that this petitioner has broken this oondition on two occasions; but it appears to me that it is a condition which should never be imposed. The learned Sessions Judge justifies the oondition because it is alleged that the petitioner will tamper with the witnesses at Eharagpur. It is common knowledge that in every bail case the police allege that there is a danger of tampering with witnesses, and if witnesses can be tampered with in this way, it does not speak very highly of the efficiency of the police. I cannot see what real danger there is in granting this man bail when his co-accused has been granted bail. Why is not there a danger that Nageswar will tamper with witnesses ?

3. As I have said, the condition imposed, though on the face of it an innocent one, really makes it impossible for the petitioner to comply with it. In oases of this sort the Sessions Judge should make up his mind whether he is going to grant bail or reject it. Granting bail with a condition such as this which no person can possibly comply with is, as I have said, tantamount to refusing the bail and in such eases the Sessions Judge should refuse the bail rather than impose this sort of condition.

4. In my view the petitioner should be released unconditionally on bail and I would, therefore, allow this petition, set aside the order of the learned Sessions Judge and grant the petitioner bail to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate of Midnapore.

5. The rule is accordingly made absolute.

J.P. Mitter, J.

6. I agree.


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