Sessions Judge lacks jurisdiction to cancel bail in pending Magistrate case; High Court's inherent power clarified.

The Division Bench clarified that a Sessions Judge lacks jurisdiction to cancel a bail order in a case pending before a Magistrate, as the power to cancel bail under Section 497(5) is limited to cases where the trial Magistrate issued the order. The Bench highlighted the High Court's inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A to ensure justice. Additionally, the judgment rejected reliance on Section 21 of the General Clauses Act to rescind a bail order, emphasizing it does not apply to judicial orders governed by procedural laws. One petitioner was ordered to remain in custody due to witness tampering concerns, while the other was granted bail under Section 561-A, Criminal P. C.

---

---

Issues:
1. Power of a Sessions Judge to cancel a bail order.
2. Justification of the order to cancel bail.

Analysis:
1. The judgment concerns a bail application in a case of triple murder where the petitioners were not initially named but later identified and arrested. The initial bail order was granted by a Sessions Judge but was later canceled by the successor judge due to alleged tampering with witnesses. The case was referred to a Division Bench for consideration of important legal questions.

2. The first issue revolves around the power of a Sessions Judge to cancel a bail order. The judgment delves into the powers of Courts in granting bail, emphasizing that in non-bailable offenses not punishable by death or life imprisonment, Magistrates, Sessions Judges, and High Courts have discretionary powers to grant bail. The power to cancel a bail order under Section 497 is conferred on the High Court and Sessions Court, but the High Court also possesses inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A to ensure justice.

3. The judgment clarifies that the power to cancel a release order under Section 497(5) is limited to cases where the trial Magistrate passed the order. In cases not covered by this clause, the High Court can utilize its inherent powers under Section 561-A. However, the Court highlights that a Sessions Judge's power to cancel bail in a case pending before a Magistrate is restricted due to lack of jurisdiction under Section 561-A.

4. The second issue pertains to the interpretation of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, which discusses the power to rescind notifications, orders, or bye-laws. The judgment rejects the argument that a Sessions Judge can rescind a bail order based on this section, emphasizing that it does not apply to judicial orders regulated by procedural laws.

5. Finally, the judgment concludes by addressing the applicants' liberty. It orders one petitioner to remain in custody due to concerns of tampering with witnesses, while the other petitioner is granted bail based on the absence of such concerns. The decision is made under the Court's powers vested by Section 561-A, Criminal P. C., ensuring a balanced approach based on the circumstances of each petitioner.

---