is different from cancelling the bail. Because both are based on different
grounds. Even if an accused, who has been directed to appear before the
police station or Court, as part of bail condition by the fact that he has
absented, he cannot be fault with. Because there may be so many reasons for
the accused that there might have some melancholy in his family or he might
have fell sick or he might have been arrested in some other case or even due
to poverty he has no money in his hand that has prevented him to go to the
police station or even the defacto complainant or his opponent preventing him
from obeying the bail condition by engaging some hooligans so that the bail
conditions may not be observed and a bail can be cancelled.
6. Therefore, some opportunity should have been given before cancelling
the bail order. Cancellation of bail order is a serious one. It is in the
nature of withdrawing the liberty already given to a person. Principles of
natural justice is very important. It is not found in any statute, but it is
found in the heart of every humanbeing. Judges are not exception to this.
In this respect the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai seems to have
passed order mechanically. He acted as motionless machine. No highly
developed computer can replace a judge. Because the inanimate computer has
no feeling or sense.
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 13.06.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE P.DEVADASS
C.R.L.RC(MD) Nos.253 of 2016 & 254 of 2016
and
CRL MP(MD)No.3337 & 3338 of 2016
1. Uma Maheshwari ... Petitioner in Crl.RC.253/2016
2. R.Hariharan ... Petitioner in Crl.RC.254/2016
-vs-
The State Rep.by
The Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch,
Madurai ... Respondent in both Crl.RCs.
As these two criminal revisions are concerned in the same crime number
and they are spouses this common order is passed.
2. In Crl.M.P.No.3561 of 2014, A2 / Umamaheswari and A1 / Hariharan
were granted bail before jail, under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Certain conditions
were imposed it includes appearance of the accused persons daily at 10 a.m.,
before the respondent police. They have complied. Subsequently, in
Crl.M.P.No..6647 of 2014 on 12.09.2014 the bail conditions completely relaxed
with respect of A2/Umaheswari. Latter, the respondent Police filed
Cr.M.P.No.4749 of 2014 to cancel the bail on the ground that they have not
obeyed the bail condition, viz, they have not attended the police station, as
per the bail order.
3. The learned Principal Sessions Judge noted down in his cancellation
bail order in para 3, which reads as follows:-
?Avjph; kDjhuh;fshd vjphpfSf;F nghjpa mwptpg;g[ mDg;gpa[k; mtfhrk;
tHq;fpa[k; mth;fSf;F ePjpkd;wk; K:yk; mDg;gpa mwptpg;g[fis thq;fhky; jpUg;gp
mDg;gpajhy; mth;fs; miHf;fg;gl;Lk; Kd;dpiyahftpy;iy.
Thus the learned Judge has cancelled the bail.
4. The Court is bound to provide them legal assistance. Some lawyers
should have been engaged defend the accused. It is the duty of the every
criminal court to provide legal assistance either by engaging an amicus curie
or a legal aid counsel because the light of the lawyer is to drive away the
darkness. Had the learned Principal Sessions Judge nominated a lawyer for
their defence. The reality of the situation viz., the bail conditions
already relaxed it should have been brought to the notice.
5. Further, there is no automatic cancellation of bail. Granting bail
is different from cancelling the bail. Because both are based on different
grounds. Even if an accused, who has been directed to appear before the
police station or Court, as part of bail condition by the fact that he has
absented, he cannot be fault with. Because there may be so many reasons for
the accused that there might have some melancholy in his family or he might
have fell sick or he might have been arrested in some other case or even due
to poverty he has no money in his hand that has prevented him to go to the
police station or even the defacto complainant or his opponent preventing him
from obeying the bail condition by engaging some hooligans so that the bail
conditions may not be observed and a bail can be cancelled.
6. Therefore, some opportunity should have been given before cancelling
the bail order. Cancellation of bail order is a serious one. It is in the
nature of withdrawing the liberty already given to a person. Principles of
natural justice is very important. It is not found in any statute, but it is
found in the heart of every humanbeing. Judges are not exception to this.
In this respect the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai seems to have
passed order mechanically. He acted as motionless machine. No highly
developed computer can replace a judge. Because the inanimate computer has
no feeling or sense. Luckily, in pursuance of the impugned order, the
accused persons are not arrested. So had providential escape. So they must
intervene. These orders suffers from legality, propriety and regularity, when
especially, the conditions are relaxed these types of order ought not to have
passed.
7. In view of the above, these revisions are allowed. The anticipatory
bail order cancelled in Cr.M.P.No.4749 of 2014 is set aside. Consequently,
anticipatory bail granted in Crl.M.P.No.3561 of 2014 is revived.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
To
1.The Principal Sessions Judge,
Madurai,
2.The Government Advocate (crl.side),
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
3.The Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch,
Madurai .
No comments:
Post a Comment