Abhey Singh Chautala vs State of Haryana and others

Sat Pal, J.

This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, the Code) for grant of bail pending trial in the case FIR No. 70 dated 23rd June, 1995, under Sections 146/150 of the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred as the Act) read with Sections 379, 356, 477, 120B, Indian Penal Code, Police Station G.R.P, Sirsa. It may be pointed out here that the petitioner had earlier filed petition for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code and that application was dismissed on 12th July, 1995.

In para 26 of the petition, it has been stated that after the application for grant of anticipatory bail was rejected, the petitioner surrendered before the Illaqa Magistrate, Sirsa, on 13th July, 1995, and was remanded to Police custody upto 17th July, 1995, on which date he was remanded to judicial custody.

Mr. Mohunta, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner had been in Police custody for 4 days and he had already been interrogated and the challan has also been filed. He further drew my attention to Section 181 of the Act and submitted that in terms of the said provision, an offence committed under the Act is triable by a Judicial Magistrate of the 1st Class. He also submitted that the punishment provided under Section 150 of the Act is the same as provided under Sections 326 and 409, Indian Penal Code, and under the First Schedule, the offences under Sections 326 and 409, Indian Penal Code are also triable by a Magistrate of the First Class. He further submitted that one of the coaccused, Ajay Singh Chautala has already been granted bail by the Court of Judicial Magistrate. He also submitted that the petitioner at present is the VicePresident of District Zila Parishad, Sirsa. He, therefore, contended that the petitioner should be released on bail.

Mr. Sibal, learned Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the State drew my attention to subclause (b) of Section 26 and the First Schedule of the Code and submitted that if any offence under other laws is punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for more than 7 years, it is triable by the Court of Sessions as per the First Schedule. He, therefore, contended that keeping in view the serious nature of the offence, the petition filed by the petitioner should be rejected.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. I, however, do not find any merit in the submissions made by the learned Advocate General that the case with regard to the offence under the Railways Act is triable by the Court of Sessions only. In this connection, it will be relevant to refer to Section 181 of the Act which reads as under :

"181. Magistrate having jurisdiction under the Act :

Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, no Court inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class shall try an offence under this Act."

The language of Section 181 of the Act clearly shows that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, an offence under the Act can be tried by a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class. Since the investigation has already been completed, challan has been filed and keeping in view the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case for grant of bail pending the trial, to the petitioner. Accordingly, I direct that the petitioner shall be admitted to bail on furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/ with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa. This order is, however, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall not go out of the country without the permission of this Court.

JUDGMENT accordingly.