Back
Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
P. DEVADASS, J.
Karuppiah @ Chinnathambi
Versus
The Inspector of Police, Embal Police Station, Avudaiyarkoil Taluk, Pudukottai District
Crl.O.P.(MD).No. 17104 of 2014
Decided On: 17-10-2014
NBW - Criminal Procedure - Court directed the Magistrate not to insist on the physical presence of the accused for recalling the NBW.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, the sole accused in a case under Section 376 I.P.C., sought a direction from the Court to recall the Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) issued against him without requiring his physical presence.
Finding of the Court:
The Court accepted the petitioner's argument that the physical presence of the accused should not be insisted upon for recalling the NBW, especially considering the petitioner's fear of being apprehended by the police if he appeared in person.
Issues: The issue revolved around whether the physical presence of the accused was necessary for recalling the NBW and the petitioner's apprehension of being arrested if he appeared in person.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the physical presence of the accused need not be insisted upon for recalling the NBW, considering the circumstances and the petitioner's fear of being apprehended by the police.
Final Decision: The Court directed the Magistrate not to insist on the physical presence of the accused for the purpose of recalling the NBW and ordered the Magistrate to pass orders on the recall petition on the same day.
1. This petition has been filed under 482 Cr.P.C. for a direction to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thirumayam, Pudukkottai District to facilitate carrying out of the direction of this Court already issued in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.4216 of 2011 dated 09.04.2011.
2. Heard both sides.
3. In this case, the petitioner is the sole accused. He is alleged to have committed an offence under Section 376 I.P.C. During the F.I.R. stage, he was granted bail. He was on Sessions Bail. In the meanwhile, the investigation has been completed and Final Report has been filed and the committal Court also took cognizance in P.R.C.No.7 of 2002.
4. Petitioner seems to have forgotten the Court but not the Court. Under the circumstances, the Court issued NBW as against him.
5. At this juncture, he approached this Court for recalling of the NBW and as stated supra, in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.4216 of 2011 order has been passed by this Court enabling him to surrender and the learned Magistrate also has been directed to decide his recall petition on the same day itself.
6. Now, everything is good, but according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, since the Magistrate insisted upon the physical presence of the accused, petitioner got frightened. Under the circumstances, he seeks a suitable direction from this Court.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that for recalling the NBW, it has been held that the very physical presence of the accused need not be insisted upon. The learned counsel also would submit that the police personnel are hoovering around the Court premises for the accused/ petitioner. Therefore, there is every likelihood that if he goes there, there is possibility he being frisked away by the police under NBW.
8. The arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner are anxiously considered and are accepted.
9. In the circumstances, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thirumayam need not insist upon the very physical presence of the accused/petitioner for the purpose of recalling the NBW. Further, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thirumayam will pass orders in the recall petition on the same day as already directed by this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.4216 of 2011 on 09.04.2011.
10. With this direction, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
