Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the arrest of the respondent for offences under sections 4 and 5 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act. The arrest was made by a Police Sub-Inspector based on a warrant issued by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. The Sub-Inspector denied bail to the respondent citing a circular order from the District Superintendent of Police that prohibited releasing individuals arrested for these offences on bail. The respondent challenged this in the High Court, which ruled that the offences were cognizable and bailable, thus requiring the police to grant bail under section 496 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The High Court found the circular order to be illegal and ultra vires. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that the Commissioner of Police has the authority to arrest and must release the accused on bail, as the offences are cognizable. The court clarified that the term 'police officer' in the context of cognizable offences does not refer to every police officer but to those of a specific rank authorized to act under the Act. The appeal was dismissed, confirming the High Court's ruling and quashing the circular order that restricted bail (Paras 396-401).
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Cognizability of Offences - Offences under sections 4 and 5 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act are cognizable and bailable - Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887, Sections 4, 5, 6 - The court held that since the Commissioner of Police has the authority to arrest under the Act, the offences are cognizable and bailable, thus obligating the police officer to release the accused on bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The impugned executive order prohibiting bail was quashed as it contradicted statutory provisions (Paras 400-401).
Issue of Consideration
Whether offences under sections 4 and 5 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act are cognizable and if the police officer is obligated to release the accused on bail.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's ruling that the offences under sections 4 and 5 are cognizable and bailable, and that the police officer is legally obligated to release the accused on bail.
Law Points
- Cognizable offences
- Bailable offences
- Police authority
- Executive instructions
- Statutory provisions
