AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.S. Sudhalkar, J.
Heard Mr. D.P. Singh, Advocate for the accused respondents and Mr. R.S. Mann, Advocate, for the State.
In civil writ petition 4120 of 1996, it was found by the Division Bench that anticipatory bail was granted to the accusedrespondents in this case and Additional Sessions Judge had exceeded his jurisdiction and completely ignored the settled provisions of law in granting the anticipatory bail.
The learned counsel for the accusedrespondents has argued that actually the case was not as serious as shown in the FIR and before the Division Bench only the FIR was shown. I do not agree with this submission of the learned Advocate. I agree with the observation of the Division Bench that the Additional Sessions Judge had exceeded his jurisdiction and ignored the settled provisions of law.
However, the question to be determined at this stage is whether anticipatory bail should be cancelled at this stage or not. The learned Advocates have stated that the accused has been challaned and charge is also framed in the case. It is further stated that the case is fixed for prosecution witnesses in March, 1977.
This being the position, there is no requirement of obtaining police remand or asking the petitioner to join the investigation. In view of this position, I do not find it proper to disturb the order already passed by the Additional Sessions Judge.
In view of the above reasons, this revision is disposed of.