Back
2013 Supreme(Mad) 1352
High Court of Judicature at Madras
ELIPE DHARMA RAO & M. VENUGOPAL, J.
V. Senthilkumar
Versus
The Chief Secretary Government of Tamil Nadu & Others
Writ Petition No. 29630 of 2011
Decided on: 20-03-2013
For the Petitioner:A. Ramesh Manikandan, Advocate.
For the Respondents: R1 & R2, M. Shanmugavelayudhan, PP Assisted by S.T.S. Moorthy, Spl. GP.
The court has the power to enlarge prisoners who have been granted bail on executing their own bond without sureties.
Headnote:
Human Rights Violation - Bail Release - Sections 294B, 341, 307 r/w 34 IPC - (1978) 4 SCC 47 - Sections 445, 441(2) and (3), 389(1) of Cr.P.C. - The court discussed the power of the High Courts to enlarge a person on his own bond without sureties, citing the decision in (1978) 4 SCC 47. The court also analyzed Sections 445, 441(2) and (3), and 389(1) of Cr.P.C. and concluded that there is no impediment for the court to enlarge the prisoners who have been granted bail, on executing own bond.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a direction to release prisoners detained without proper procedure of laws, Supreme Court directions, and Human Rights violation. The petitioner highlighted the case of an accused who applied for bail but was not considered, alleging violation of human rights. The court directed an inquiry and found that many prisoners were still in jail for non-furnishing sureties despite being granted bail.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there were numerous prisoners languishing in jail even after being granted bail. It decided to release 73 prisoners on executing personal bond before the concerned Judicial Magistrates.
Issues: Violation of human rights, non-furnishing of sureties despite bail orders, and the power of the court to enlarge prisoners on their own bond without sureties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court analyzed the power of the High Courts to enlarge a person on his own bond without sureties, citing the decision in (1978) 4 SCC 47. It also considered Sections 445, 441(2) and (3), and 389(1) of Cr.P.C. and concluded that there is no impediment for the court to enlarge the prisoners who have been granted bail, on executing own bond.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was disposed of, and the respondents were directed to release 73 prisoners on executing personal bond before the concerned Judicial Magistrates.
Elipe Dharma Rao, J.
1. The petitioner, claiming to be a Teacher and Secretary in Constitutional Legal Awareness Association, has filed this Writ Petition seeking for a direction to the respondents to take necessary action to release the prisoners, who are detained for a long time without proper procedure of Laws, Supreme Court directions and Human Rights violation, throughout the State of Tamil Nadu on own bails without any surety.
2. The case of the petitioner is that though the accused, by name, Veeraraju @ Velusamy in Crime No. 1527 of 2009 registered for the offences under Sections 294B, 341 and 307 r/w 34 IPC on the file of Polur Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District, applied for bail before the lower Court as well as before the Sessions Court, yet, the same was not considered, which, according to him, is nothing but violation of human rights. It is the further case of the petitioner that there are number of persons, despite the bail granted, confined in various Central Prisons in the State of Tamil Nadu.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the respondents and perused the records.
4. This matter relates to accused, who, inspite of having been granted bail, still languish in jail because of non-furnishing sureties to the satisfaction of the concerned Court. The First Bench of this Court, by order dated 23.12.2011, called for a report from the Director General of Police (Prisons). In compliance of the same, the Additional Director General of Police and Inspector General of Prisons filed a statement to the effect that most of the bail orders by the lower Courts were not forwarded to the Prisons concerned. He also furnished the details of the prisoners who have obtained bail and still in jail for non-furnishing sureties before the Court, which granted bail.
5. When the matter came up for consideration on 08.01.2013, because of the nondisclosure of complete facts by the respondents – State, this Court directed the Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority, Chennai and all other Member Secretaries of the various Districts, viz., Vellore, Cuddalore, Trichy, Salem, Coimbatore, Madurai, Virudhunagar, Ramanathapuram, Periyakulam, Palayamkottai and Pudukottai, to conduct enquiry in the Prisons located in their area and submit report with regard to the details of the accused, who are kept in jail even after obtaining bail orders for want of furnishing sureties and execution of bail bonds. Accordingly, the Member Secretary filed a report stating that there are about 272 inmates in custody in various prisons in the State for want of providing sureties / executing bail bonds. However, since the report does not contain the details regarding the crime number, nature of offences, etc., this Court directed to submit report containing those particulars.
6. Thereafter, the Superintendents of various Central Prisons have filed their counter affidavits giving details about the name of the accused, father's name, Crime Numbers, offences registered and the jurisdictional Courts.
7. The question with regard to the power of the High Courts to enlarge a person on his own bond without sureties was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in (1978) 4 SCC 47 (Moti Ram and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh). While considering the question whether the Court, under the Code of Criminal Procedure, can enlarge on his own bond without sureties, a person undergoing incarceration for a non-bailable offence either as under-trial or as convict who has appealed or sought special leave, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows :-
"21. We have explained later that the power of the Supreme Court to enlarge a person during the pendency of a Special Leave Petition or of an appeal is very wide, as Order 212 Rule 27 of the Supreme Court Rules discloses. In that sense, a consideration of the question as to whether the High Court or the subordinat
