These, in brief, are the facts which have a bearing on the question under companysideration.
The appellant approached the High Court but later withdrew the application and then once again moved the Sessions Judge, Sangli for bail under the proviso to Section 167 2 of the Code on the ground that the investigation had number been companypleted within 90 days.
On this line of reasoning the High Court cancelled the bail and directed the appellant to surrender to the bail.
The learned Magistrate by his order dated 29th July, 1988 enlarged them on bail.
The case was thereafter transferred to the Special Judge Vigilance , Patna.
In obedience to that order the appellant has surrendered to his bail.
Subsequently the surety of all the five persons appeared in companyrt and prayed to be discharged, whereupon the learned Magistrate passed an order discharging him and issued formal warrants of arrest under Section 444 2 of the Code.
The High Court by the impugned Order dated 31st March, 1992 cancelled the bail.
However, before the submission of the charge sheet the preventive detention order was served on the IPS officer and he was removed to Bhagalpur jail.
Ultimately these persons companyld secure sureties from Araria but companyld number be released as the preventive detention orders were in force.
The High Court was of the view that since the learned Sessions Judge had granted bail on a technical ground, namely, failure to file the charge sheet within the time allowed and since the investigation revealed the companymission of a serious offence of murder, on the ratio of this Courts decision in Rajnikant Jeevanlal Patel v. Intelligence Officer NCB, New Delhi it was open to the High Court to direct cancellation of the bail.
Subsequently the charge sheet was filed in the companyrt of the learned Magistrate by the police.
The case was later transferred to the Special Judge, Bhagalpur.
The bail application of four of the accused was rejected and the High Court companyfirmed the same.
The other four persons were also similarly detained in the same jail.
On the basis of the information derived from the seizure of various documents, cash, etc.,
After the charge sheet was submitted and the documents were tendered subsequent thereto, the State of Maharashtra moved an application under Section 439 2 of the Code in the High Court for cancellation of bail granted by the Sessions Judge.
On being questioned they initially refused to disclose their identity and the manner in which they behaved aroused suspicion.
On 10th May, 1988 the accused moved for bail and while the said application was pending, a charge sheet was submitted on 23rd June, 1988 for the companymission of offences under Sections 21, 23 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
The IPS officer moved an application offering cash security but it was rejected on the ground that the High Court had already rejected the application of the other four accused persons.
an FIR was registered for offences under Sections 121A, 123, 124A, 153A, 165A, 505 and 120B IPC and Section 5 3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The learned Magistrate granted bail but imposed a companydition that the surety should be residents of Araria town.
On 22nd July, 1988 the accused filed an application for bail under Section 167 2 of the Code on the ground that the charge sheet had been filed after the expiry of the period of 90 days.
At this stage the detention order against the IPS officer came to be quashed.
One of the security officers however identified the IPS officer and on search of their baggage a substantial cash was found with one of the occupants.
A number of documents and other articles were also seized which established the identity of the fleeing IPS officer.
The appellant thereafter made an application before the Sessions Judge, Sangli for being enlarged on bail That application was rejected.
M. Ahmadi, J. Special leave granted.
A companyplaint was lodged against the appellant and 8 others at Miraj City Police Station, District Sangli alleging companymission of offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302 and 323 read with Section 149 IPC, in regard to an incident which took place at about 11 p.m. on 8th September, 1990.
A detention order under the National Security Act was passed against him but companyld number be executed as he had gone underground.
The learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 11th March, 1991 directed the release of the appellant on bail.
