JUDGMENT
Amar Saran, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.
2. This application has been filed with the prayer that the applicant may be permitted to continue on the earlier bail granted to him under Sections 498A, 323, 504 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act in Case No. 2176 of 2005 Rajendra Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P. subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds.
3. It has been argued that the applicant was released on bail by the Investigating Officer on 22.6.2005 on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of Rs. 5,000/- each on the ground that he was an old and infirm person aged about 60 years and not capable of moving around without a stick. He was also suffering from heart disease. Although, ordinarily, it is not desirable that the bail should be granted by Investigating Officer in the case of non bailable offences, however, there is no legal bar in the grant of bail. Section 437(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which permits the bail to be granted in exceptional circumstances by the Investigating Officer or the Magistrate subject to the limitations contained in Section 437(i) and (ii) that such person is not to be released on bail, if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that he has been guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life or if The Offence for which he has been arrested is a recognizable offence and he had earlier been convicted of an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for 7 years or more, or he had been previously convicted on two or more occasions of a non bailable and cognizable offence, In such eventuality the Magistrate or the Investigating Officer had no power to grant bail. Even in such circumstances vide proviso to Section 437(i) Cr. P. C. the Court concerned could direct that the persons referred to in Clauses (i) and (ii) could be released on bail if such person was under 16 years of age or a woman or was sick or infirm. Now clearly an offence under Section 498A IPC, although, it is a non bailable offence, but the punishment prescribed is only three years and fine, hence the offences for which the applicant was an accused, were not the offences Punishable with life imprisonment or death According there was no absolute bar on the applicant being granted bail by the Magistrate. In view of this position, the decision of the Apex Court in Prahlad Singh Bhati v. N.C.T., Delhi 2001 (2) JIC 50 (SC), which restricts Magistrate from granting bail in a sessions triable case punishable with imprisonment for life will not come in the way of the Magistrate granting bail in the present case. Consequently, in my view a earlier submission of the charge sheet dated 22.6.2005 before the Magistrate, it does not become imperative for the applicant to again seek bail.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant also relied on two decision of this Court in support of his contention. The decisions cited are in Yaqoob and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr. reported in 2001 (42) ACC, 301 and in Smt. Radha Devi v. State of U.P. and Ors. reported in 2002 (44) ACC, 810.
5. In view of old age and alleged sickness of the applicant, I think it would be just and proper to permit the applicant to remain on the earlier bail granted to him by the Investigating Officer subject to his furnishing fresh bail bond in and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned.
6. The application is disposed of as above.
