As observed in Prahlad Singh Bhati v. N.C.T of Delhi & Another, (2001) 4 SCC 280 even though there is no legal bar for a Magistrate to consider an application for grant of bail to a person who is arrested for an offence exclusively triable by a court of Sessions yet it would be proper and appropriate that in such a case, the Magistrate directs the accused persons to approach the Court of Sessions for the purpose of getting the relief of bail.
Even if, the Magistrate opts to exercise the powers u/s 437 of the Code, in such a case, he or she has to comply with the relevant provisions incorporated in Section 437.
A bare reading of the provisions of Section 437 Cr.P.C makes it clear that in case the Magistrate deems it appropriate to release the accused on bail, who is accused of offence punishable with imprisonment which may extend to seven years or more, it is incumbent upon him/her to record such reasons for releasing on bail [vide proviso to sub-section(1)].
Furthermore, no such order is to be passed unless an opportunity of hearing is given to the Public Prosecutor (vide fourth proviso to sub-section (1).
While releasing on bail, the conditions as prescribed in sub-section(3) of Section 437 besides any other condition which the Court may consider necessary, has to be imposed.
Cancellation of Bail
In Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349 it was observed that bail once granted cannot be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstance have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession ofbail during trial.
In State of U.P through CBI v. Amarmani Tripathi, (2005) 8 SCC 21, it was observed that in an application for cancellation ofbail, conduct subsequent to release on bail and the supervening circumstances alone are relevant. But in an appeal against grant ofbail, all aspects that were relevant u/s 439 read with Section 437 continue to be relevant.