Summary of Opinion — Desai, J.

Factual and Procedural Background

This is an application challenging the order of the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Metropolitan Area, Bangalore dated 19-6-80 which refused bail to the petitioner, Laxmamma. The petitioner is an approver in a Sessions case against Shanmugam and Laxman Giri under Sections 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 114 IPC. The Sessions Judge refused bail on the ground that he had no power to grant bail because of the prohibition contained in Section 306(4)(b) Cr. P.C.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the prohibition contained in Section 306(4)(b) Cr. P.C. prevents the Sessions Court from granting bail to a person who has been tendered pardon under Section 307 Cr. P.C.
2. Whether, having been tendered pardon under Section 307 Cr. P.C., the petitioner (an approver) is entitled to be released on bail.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments (Mr. Raja Iyengar)

• The petitioner has been tendered pardon under Section 307 Cr. P.C. by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge.
• Because the Sessions Court tendered pardon under Section 307 Cr. P.C., the prohibition in Section 306(4)(b) Cr. P.C. does not apply and therefore the Sessions Court may release the petitioner on bail.

Sessions Court's Position (as described in the application)

• The learned Second Additional Sessions Judge rejected the bail application mainly on the ground that he had no power to grant bail in view of the prohibition contained in Section 306(4)(b) Cr. P.C.

High Court Government Pleader

• The learned High Court Government Pleader conceded that he had no objections to releasing the petitioner on bail.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court accepted the petitioner's contention that the prohibition in Section 306(4)(b) Cr. P.C. does not preclude the Sessions Court from releasing the petitioner on bail once pardon has been tendered under Section 307 Cr. P.C. The court's analysis proceeded as follows:

1. It was not disputed that the petitioner had been tendered pardon under Section 307 Cr. P.C. by the Sessions Court.
2. The court observed that, under Section 307 Cr. P.C., the Sessions Court may tender pardon to an accused committed to it for trial on the condition stated in Section 306 Cr. P.C.
3. The court identified the sole condition stated in Section 306 Cr. P.C.: that the person to whom pardon is tendered shall make a full and true disclosure of the whole of the circumstances within his knowledge relating to the offence and to every other person concerned, whether as principal or abettor in the commission thereof.
4. The court held that the prohibition contained in Section 306(4)(b) Cr. P.C. applies only to Magistrates and is not a condition on which pardon may be tendered by the Sessions Court; therefore that prohibition does not constitute a restriction applicable to pardons tendered under Section 307 Cr. P.C.
5. The court concluded that the provision in Section 306(4)(b) Cr. P.C. could not be applied by analogy to a person to whom pardon has been tendered under Section 307 Cr. P.C. by the Sessions Judge.
6. Because there is no prohibition in Section 307 Cr. P.C. barring release on bail, the petitioner could be released on bail; additionally, the court noted the petitioner is a lady and that the High Court Government Pleader had no objection to bail.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The petition is allowed and the petitioner shall be released on bail.

The direct consequence of the court's decision is that the petitioner, Laxmamma, is to be released on bail upon executing a bond for Rs. 2,000 with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Metropolitan Area, Bangalore. The opinion bases this outcome on the interpretation that Section 306(4)(b) Cr. P.C. does not restrict the Sessions Court's power to deal with a person tendered pardon under Section 307 Cr. P.C. No broader precedent or additional implications were discussed in the opinion; the decision's immediate effect is the grant of bail to the petitioner.