Full Judgment
A.H. Khan, J.
1. An application for bail under Section 498 Cr. P. Code was moved before the Sessions Judge, Bhilsa, who disposed it of in a most perfunctory manner. Without applying his mind to the facts of the case, which, he should have done, he has refused bail.
2. From the F. I. R. it appears that the accused Kashiram in this case is a person who is married to the sister of the complainant, Kamal Singh. It also appears there was also a dispute between the brothers-in-law with regard to the sending of Mst. Halki Bai, wife of the accused Kashiram. We must now consider this case in the background of these facts. The accused have been challenged for an offence of dacoity. Out of the four accused, who have been arrested in this case, nothing has been recovered from the possession of three.
Only from accused Nirpatsingh, one Kangna (bangle of silver) has been recovered, the weight of which is 16 Tolas. But in the F. I. R., the weight of the looted Kangna is given as 12 tolas. The learned Sessions Judge has failed to take notice of the point. It also appears that Kamal Singh complainant has said that he was beaten with Pharshas. Without commenting on the medical certificate, I find that there is no serious or grievous hurt and the doctor has described the injuries as simple. All the facts put together incline me to admit the accused to bail.
3. I would like to remind Sessions Judges and all Magistrates who deal with bail applications that the right to remain at liberty is a valuable right and the application for bail should not be dealt with in a superficial manner. The Criminal Procedure Code has laid down that where there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the accused has committed a non-bailable offence, but that there are sufficient grounds for further enquiry into his guilt, the Court shall release the accused on bail.
4. The learned Sessions Judge in refusing bail has recorded the following order:
'Application for release on bail presented. Information be sent to Guna for registration, Counsel heard.
The applicants if released are likely to interfere with evidence and disturb the tranquillity of the villagers. The application is disallowed without notice to the N. A.'
From the above order it appears that the learned Judge assumed that the accused, if released on bail, were likely to tamper with the prosecution evidence, But he overlooked the fact that the accused were on bail during the committal proceedings and there is no complaint or even a faint suggestion by the prosecution that they tampered with the evidence in the committing court. I find that the learned Additional Sessions Judge did not even give notice to Police and assumed without rhyme and reason that the prosecution evidence would be interfered with. I am afraid the learned Additional Sessions Judge has acted most arbitrarily in refusing bail.
5. For reasons stated above, I direct that if the four accused applicants execute bonds for Rs. 2000/- each and furnish security for the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, they shall be released on bail till the decision of the case.