Back
2014 Supreme(Mad) 648
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P. DEVADASS, J.
Sathya
Versus
State rep. by Inspector of Police, Vellore North Police Station, Vellore District
Crl.O.P. No. 5942 of 2014
Decided on: 18 March 2014
T.R. Ravi, for Petitioner
K. Prabakar Government Advocate (Crl. Side), for Respondent
Bail in a bailable offence is a matter of right, and the accused is entitled to bail as per the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Headnote:
BAIL - Offence under Section 212 r/w 302 of IPC - Section 212 - Summary of the acts and sections referenced and discussed by the court: The court discussed Section 212 of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with harbouring an offender with the intention of screening him from legal punishment. The court highlighted the mens rea (guilty mind) requirement and the punishment provisions based on the type of principal offence. It also emphasized the bail provisions under Section 436 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, stating that bail in a bailable offence is a matter of right.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought bail for an alleged offence under Section 212 r/w 302 of IPC, where he was accused of aiding a killer to escape legal punishment. The petitioner had been denied bail and was in jail since 17.2.2014.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the offence under Section 212 IPC is bailable, and the petitioner, being accused of a bailable offence, was entitled to bail as a matter of right.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner, accused of an offence under Section 212 IPC, was entitled to bail as a matter of right.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that bail in a bailable offence is a matter of right, and the petitioner, being accused of a bailable offence under Section 212 IPC, was entitled to bail.
Final Decision: Bail was granted to the petitioner, and he was ordered to execute his own bond and appear before the police as and when required for interrogation.
1. Petition for bail.
2. Offence under Section 212 r/w 302 of IPC.
3. Mr. T.R. Ravi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is accused of an alleged offence under Section 212 r/w 302 of I.P.C. It is out and out a bailable offence. However, he was denied bail. It is against law. He is languishing in jail since 17.2.2014.
4. The learned Government Advocate (crl. side) submits that petitioner is a co-accused. He is concerned in a murder case.
5. I have anxiously considered the rival submissions and referred to the relevant provisions of law.
6. On 19.4.2013, G.G. Ramesh, a person of fame and name in Vellore was brutally murdered by a gang. There are many accused. It is alleged that petitioner, namely, Sathya/A7 carried A3/Sasi @ Sasikumar, a killer in his bike and helped him to escape. It is alleged that he did this with a view to screen A3 from legal punishment.
7. In this connection, A7 has been booked for an offence under Section 212 r/w 302 IPC. He surrendered himself before the concerned Magistrate. He was remanded to judicial custody. On 26.2.2014, he moved bail before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Vellore in Crl.M.P. No. 949 of 2014. It was dismissed. That is how, now, A7, seeks bail before us.
8. The offence alleged as against the petitioner is under Section 212 IPC.
9. Section 212 I.P.C runs as under:
“Section 212 Harbouring Offender.- Whenever an offence has been committed, whoever harbours or conceals a person whom he knows or has reasons to believe to be the offender, with the intention of screening him from legal punishment;
if a capital offence:- shall, if the offence is punishable with death, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine;
if punishable with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment:- and if the offence is punishable with (imprisonment for life), or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine;
and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to one year, and not to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of imprisonment provided for the offence, or with fine, or with both.
(“Offence” in this section includes any act committed at any place out of (India), which, if committed in (India), would be punishable under any of the following sections, namely, 302, 304, 382, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 402, 435, 436, 449, 450, 457, 458, 459 and 460; and every such act shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to be punishable as if the accused person had been guilty of it in (India).)
Exception:- This provision shall not extend to any case in which the harbour or concealment is by the husband or wife of the offender.”
10. The crux of Section 212 IPC is aiding/helping a person involved in a crime. The sole object being screening him from legal punishment. Similar category of offence is offence under Section 201 I.P.C. It is concerned with screening the offence, while Section 212 I.P.C is concerned with screening the offender. Both Section 212 and 201 I.P.C are common with respect to mens rea (guilty mind), namely, knowledge of the principal offence having been committed and it is done to screen him from legal punishment. Otherwise he will be a normal person like one, who helps other, like a good Samaritan, without knowledge of any criminality. The petitioner must know that he was carrying a killer in his bike and it is to help him to escape from legal punishment.
11. Section 212 IPC may be committed with reference to any offence, may be a murder or hurt or even a property offence. The offence has been made cognizable. Punishment depends on the type of the principal offence with reference to which an offence under Sect
