Singh, J. -
Heard Mr. P. G. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor for the State.
The petitioner, Sri Kiran Chandra Goswami, surrendered in person to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Golaghat, in connection with G. R. Case No. 681 of 1974, arising out of the F.I.R. Sarupathar P. S. Case No. 8(6)/74. He is named in the F.I.R. as one of the accused. While surrendering, he prayed for his release on bail under section 437, Cr. P. C. which the Magistrate refused on the ground that he has not been arrested or detained till then by the police in a non-bailable offence, nor has any process been issued for his arrest and appearance before the Court. It appears that the lear ned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate has erroneously put an interpretation on the provision of section 437, Cr. P. C. which lays down in clear terms that when any person accused of or suspected of the commission of any non-cognizable offence appears before a court other than the High Court or the Court of Session, he may be released on bail, but he shall not be so released if there appears reasonable ground for believing that he has been guilty of on offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. There are two provisos of this section with which we are not concerned. When a person in such a situation appears before a Magistrate on surrender, three courses are open to him. The Magistrate may release him on bail, OF remand him further to judicial custody, or remand him to the custody of the police to facilitate investigation, if prayed for by the investigation agency. The Magistrate has to adopt one of the courses open to him in exercise of the judicial discre tion, having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. In the present case, the petitioner who is involved as an accused in the non-bailable offence under section 408/468, I.P.C., was in judicial custody, when he surrendered himself to the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate. The Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate in the circumstances ought to have considered his bail applica tion on merits either to reject or grant the bail and ought to have passed an appropriate order, as indicated above.
I have considered the application for bail filed to this Court. The petitioner was a Secretary of the School at the relevant time when the alleged offences were committed. He is at present holding the post of Supervisor in the Co-operative Society spon sored by the Govt. and is posted at Gauhati. A co-accused in the case has also been released on bail. He has family members and has roots in the society. The question of hampe ring with the investigation does not seem to arise at this state. On a consideration of the circumstances above, the petitioner is released on bail subject to his execution of bond of Rs. 500.00, with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Golaghat. The petition is dis posed of as such.