1 abs FARAD CONTINUATION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT WPBOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2779 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Mr. B.A. Lawate i/b Mr. R.V. Bansode for the applicant. Mr. Santosh Deshpande for respondent nos.2, 3, 4, 6 and 7. Ms. A.T. Jhaveri, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, JJ. DATE : 25TH NOVEMBER 2009 P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. By this application under section 482 read with section 439(2) of the Cr. P.C., the applicant, who is the original complainant, prays for cancellation of bail granted to the respondent nos.2 to 7 by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 17th Court, Borivali vide his order 2 dated 6th June 2009. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that since the offence was punishable under section 307 of the I.P.C., the case could be tried only by a Court of Sessions and therefore the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to grant bail. 4. A copy of the charge-sheet has not been annexed to the application nor was the learned counsel for the applicant able to produce a copy at the hearing of the application. He only referred to a copy of a F.I.R. which is annexed at Exhibit-A to the application. Perusal of the copy of the F.I.R. shows that the complainant had lodged the F.I.R. regarding the alleged offence punishable under sections 141, 143, 144, 147, 148, 149, 323, 324 and 504 of the I.P.C. In the F.I.R., the applicant has not alleged that an offence under section 307 of the I.P.C. was committed. 3 5. In the impugned order, the learned Magistrate has also stated that the report sent by the concerned police station to the court on 31st March 2009 does not disclose commission of an offence punishable under section 307 of the I.P.C. Before the Magistrate, it was submitted by the A.P.P. that the police had subsequently added section 307 of the I.P.C. and were to submit supplementary report. There was, however, no material before the Magistrate when he passed the impugned order that offence under section 307 of the I.P.C. was committed and no charge-sheet under section 307 of I.PC. was filed by the police. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the learned Magistrate was not competent to grant bail. 6. No other ground was urged. 7. There is no merit in the application which is hereby dismissed summarily. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)