Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A.
This application has been filed by the applicants with a prayer that the bail application of the applicant in case crime no. 818 of 2006, under Sections 323, 504 & 506, IPC, and Section 3(1)(X) SC/ST Act, Police Station Dumariyaganj, District Siddhartha Nagar may be disposed of in view of the Smt. Amarawati and and another Vs. State of U.P. 2005 Cr.LJ 755 The full Bench of this Court has held in the aforementioned case:
1. Even if a cognizable offence is disclosed in the FIR or complaint the arrest of the accused is not a must, rather the police officer should be guided by the decision of the Supreme Curt in Joginder Kumar Vs. State of U.P. 1994 CR.L.J. 1981, before deciding whether to make an arrest or not.
2. The High Court should ordinarily not direct any Subordinate Court to decide the bail application the same day, as that would be interfering with the judicial discretion of the court hearing the bail application. However, as stated above, when the bail application is under Section 437 CR.P.C. ordinarily the Magistrate should himself decide the bail application the same, and if he decides in a rare and exception case not to decide it on the same day, he must record his reasons in writing. As regards the application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. it is in the discretion of the learned Sessions Judge, considering the facts and circumstances whether to decide the bail application the same day or not, and it is also in his discretion to grant interim bail the same day subject to the final decision on the bail applciation later.
The same has been approved by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Versus State of U.P.
With this direction, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 3.2.2010 ARS