1951 (5) TMI 13 - HC - Indian Laws

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 ... Power to cancel an order admitting to bail - inherent powers of the High Court under Section 561-A, Criminal P. C. - distinction between Section 497 and Section 498, Criminal P. C. regarding bail - limitations on Sessions Court's jurisdiction to rescind bail granted by a predecessor - application of Section 21, General Clauses Act to judicial orders - ejusdem generis rule in construing statutory wordsPower to cancel an order admitting to bail - inherent powers of the High Court under Section 561-A, Criminal P. C. - distinction between Section 497 and Section 498, Criminal P. C. regarding bail - limitations on Sessions Court's jurisdiction to rescind bail granted by a predecessor - Whether the Sessions Judge was empowered to cancel the order of his predecessor admitting the petitioners to bail. - HELD THAT: - The Court examined the statutory scheme governing admission to bail and cancellation. Section 497(5) confines the cancellation power to cases where the initial release was by the trial Magistrate; Section 498 and Section 426 delineate other jurisdictions. The High Court's power to rescind release orders in cases not covered by Section 497(5) derives from its inherent powers under Section 561-A, Criminal P. C., and is not confined to matters pending before it. However, the Sessions Judge, not being seized of the trial or inquiry and lacking the jurisdiction conferred by Section 561-A, cannot be held to possess an inherent power to cancel a release order made by his predecessor in a matter pending before a Magistrate. Consequently the Sessions Judge's cancellation of the earlier bail order was ultra vires. [Paras 5, 6]The Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to cancel the predecessor's bail order; the cancellation was ultra vires.Application of Section 21, General Clauses Act to judicial orders - ejusdem generis rule in construing statutory words - inherent powers of the High Court under Section 561-A, Criminal P. C. - Whether Section 21 of the General Clauses Act empowered the Sessions Judge to rescind his own earlier judicial order of release, and the effect of that provision on judicial orders. - HELD THAT: - The Court held that Section 21, which permits adding, amending, varying or rescinding 'notifications, orders, rules or bye-laws', does not extend to judicial orders governed by procedural law. Applying the ejusdem generis principle, the word 'orders' in Section 21 is to be read in the limited sense of non judicial administrative instruments associated with notifications, rules and bye laws. Therefore Section 21 cannot be invoked to justify rescission of a judicial bail order; rescission of such orders must rest on the procedural code or inherent judicial powers where applicable. [Paras 7]Section 21, General Clauses Act, does not authorise a Sessions Judge to rescind a judicial order of release; the provision applies to non judicial orders.Inherent powers of the High Court under Section 561-A, Criminal P. C. - power to cancel an order admitting to bail - Whether, on the merits and in exercise of powers under Section 561 A, the Court should cancel bail of the petitioners. - HELD THAT: - Exercising the High Court's inherent jurisdiction under Section 561 A, the Court evaluated the risk of tampering with prosecution witnesses. On the material before it the Court concluded that there were justified apprehensions that Bachchu Lal would tamper with or intimidate witnesses, making it unsafe to allow him to remain at large; accordingly his bail bonds were cancelled and he was ordered to be kept in custody pending inquiry. By contrast, the Court found no satisfactory grounds to conclude that Debi Dayal was likely to tamper with witnesses, and his bail was allowed to continue subject to furnishing sureties and a personal bond to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate. [Paras 8]Bail cancelled for Bachchu Lal and he ordered to be remanded in custody; bail continued for Debi Dayal subject to specified sureties and personal bond.Final Conclusion: The Sessions Judge lacked jurisdiction to cancel the predecessor's bail order; Section 21, General Clauses Act, does not empower rescission of judicial orders. Exercising the High Court's inherent powers under Section 561 A, the Court cancelled bail of Bachchu Lal on grounds of probable tampering with witnesses, and upheld bail of Debi Dayal subject to conditions. 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.