The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 438(1) of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order passed by the court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Pargi, Vikarabad District, 06-05-2025 in Crime. No. 94 of 2025 ot Chengomul Police station, Vikarabad District by revoking/cancelling the bail of the petitioner which was granted in Crl.M.P.No.13012025 on 2210412025 pending disposal of the Criminal Revision Case before this Honourable Court, in the interest of Justice. -7 Counsel for the Petitioners: Ms. N. Vani Sri, counsel representing Dr. Challa Srinivasa Reddy Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public prosecutor The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 479 OF 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 438 & 442 ot Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ('for short 'the BNSS') seeking quashment of the order dated 06.05.2025 passed by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pargi, Vikarabad District, in Crime No. 94 of 2025 of Chengomul Police Station, Vikarabad District

2. The revision petitioners are accused Nos.'l to 5 in Crime No.94 of 2025 facing accusations for the offence punishable under Section 310(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'the BNS').

3. I have heard Ms. N. Vani Sri, learned counsel, representing Dr. Challa Srinivas Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the respondentState.

4. The relevant facts, briefly stated, are that the prosecution initially invoked Section 307 of the BNS against the petitioners in the Remand Case Diary. Acting upon this, the trial CourUMagistrate registered a case under Section 307 BNS and, while granting bail, expressly observed that the offence had been rightly registered under tha\1 \-tr \ -- .r 2 N711./ C.IRC \,0. 179 oJ 202; provision- However, during the course of investigation, the prosecution filed a memo seeking arteration of the charge from section 307 to Section 310(2) BNS. Despite this, while considering bait, the prosecution failed to bring this alteration to the notice of the court. Consequently, the trial Court, without observing the change, granted bail. The prosecution has since contended that by misrepresenting the applicable provision as Section 307 instead of Section 310(2) BNS, which is an offence excrusivery triabre by the court of session, the Magistrate acted without jurisdiction in granting bair. Accordingry, the Court revoked the earlier bail order on that ground.

5. Learned counser for the petitioners submits that, even if the complaint averments are accepted in their entirety, the application of Section 310(2) BNS is unwarranted and regaily unsustainabre. rt is further argued that the Magistrate, in granting bair, faired to exercise the jurisdiction properry with reference to the materiars placed before the court. Learned counser contends that even assuming the offence is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, once bail had been granted, the Magistrate, lacked jurisdiction to recail or revoke the bair order. While the initial grant of bail may itself have been irregular, the subsequent revocation compounds the error, as the Magistrate is not / 3 \-r&/ Cr/.kC. Na 179 o1 2025 vested with such power. On these grounds, indulgence of this Court has been sought.

6. ln reply, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the position of law is clear. ln a czlse triable exclusively by the Sessions Court, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to grant bail in the first instance. Since the earlier grant of bail was without jurisdiction, the subsequent revocation of that order amounts merely to a rectification of a legal error. Accordingly, no illegality can be attributed to the impugned order. The prosecution, therefore, prays for dismissal of the present petition.

7. I have perused the materials on record B. Section 310(2) of the'BNS prescribes the punishment for dacoity, which may extend to imprisonment for life. The offence is triable exclusively by the Court of Session. Although Sections 478480 of the BNSS (corresponding to Sections 436437 of the CrPC) vest Magistrates with limited discretion to grant bail in non-bailable offences, the Supreme Court in Prahlad Singh Bhati v' NCT of Delhi (2001) held that where the offence is punishable with death or life imprisonment, Magistrates should ordinarily refrain from exercising such discretion and must refer the matter to the Sessions court or the \ t i l 4 N R,/ (ll.kC. No. 479 oJ'202; High Court. Accordingly, in the instant case, the Magistrate's initial order granting bail under Section 310(2) BNS was without jurisdiction.

9. The issue then arises whether the Magistrate could subsequently revoke his own bail order. The law is well settled that once bail has been granted, the Magistrate becomes functus officio and lacks the power to review or recall that order. ln Sfate v. Sanjay Gandhi (AlR 1978 SC 961), the Supreme Court categorically held that cancellation of bail lies exclusively before the Sessions Court or High Court under Section 439(2) CrPC. Further, in Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana [(1995) 1 SCC 349], the Hon'ble Supreme Court clarified that bail, once granted, cannot be cancelled merely on the ground that it was erroneously granted. Cancellation of bail requires the presence of supervening circumstances such as violation of bail conditions, attempts to tamper with evidence, intimidation of witnesses, or misuse of liberty. Thus, the Magistrate acted withdut authority in revoking the bail order

10. The proper course open to the prosecution, if aggrieved by the initial order of bail, was to approach the Sessions Court or the High Court under Section 439(2) CrPC (Section 483 BNSS). ln the given circumstance, both the initial grant of bail and its subsequent revocation are legally unsustainable, the former due to want of 5 NIRJ (.rl.ILC. No. 179 ol 2025 jurisdiction, and the latter for exceeding the Magistrate's powers' The Supreme Court in Puran v. Rambilas (2001) 6 SCC 3381 and Sfate of Gujarat v. Satimbhai Abdulgaffar Sharkh [(2003) I SCC 50] has consistently held that orders passed without jurisdiction are nullities in law. \

11. ln sum, the Magistrate lacked competence both to grant bail in respect of an offence under Section 310(2) BNS, triable exclusively by the Sessions Court, and to revoke his own order' ln contrast' the prosecution's proper remedy lies in moving the higher Courts under Section 439(2) CrPC/Section 483 BNSS' '12. Thus, this Court accordingly holds: The impugned order revoking bail is hereby set aside' Both the grant of bail and its revocation are declared void for . want of jurisdiction' The petitioners are directed to surrender before the jurisdictional Sessions Court within two weeks from today' Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to apply for bail before the Sessions Court, which shall consider such application on its own merits, uninfluenced by the observations in this order' l I J 6 NrRJ O/.k(. Na 479 of 202: -"1 13 The Criminal Revision Case stands disposed of in the above Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPYII Sd/- K. SREE RAMA MURTHY DEPUTY REGISTRAR -t ll"J sEcflqft'oFFtcER To, any) '1. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class pargi, Vikarabad District.(with records, if 2 The station House officer, chengomur porice station, vikarabad District. 3 Two ccs to the pubric prosecuir, ,,gn-c"r.t'tor *re siate?rrirnJ"n, 4. One CC to Dr. Chaila Srinivasa Reddy, Advocate tOpUCI 5. Two CD Copies Hyderabad. [OUT] "t Kam/gh / t I HIGH COURT DATED:29108t2025 ORDER CRLRC.N o.419 of 2025 ',, , )|?, I l'l E S rri I.." /'. 0 t sEP 2025 t .9 i,f / /t R/7 DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE