Back
2015 Supreme(Mad) 205
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P. DEVADASS, J.
Ambayeram
Versus
The State, Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Kunnam Police Station, Perambalur Dist.
Crl. O.P. No. 2868 of 2015
Decided on: 10-02-2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Velmurugan, Advocate.
For the Respondent: K. Prabakar, G.A. (Crl.Side).
Bail is a matter of right for bailable offences, and the duty of the court is to inform the accused of their entitlement to bail.
Headnote:
Bail - Offences under IPC - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, A5, was arrested and remanded in connection with offences under Sections 147, 148, 302, 201 and 120(B) of IPC, related to the assault and subsequent death of a construction worker. The petitioner was alleged to have screened the offence without participating in the killing.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the nature of bailable and non-bailable offences under the Code of Criminal Procedure, emphasizing that bail is a matter of right for bailable offences and can be granted after considering relevant principles for non-bailable offences. The court referred to a previous case to establish that bail is the rule and jail is the exception for certain bailable offences.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner, accused of screening the offence under Section 201 IPC, was entitled to bail, as the trial court had approached the matter as though it was a non-bailable offence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified that an offence under Section 201 IPC is bailable, requiring 'mens rea' and providing guidelines for bail in such cases. It emphasized that the duty of the magistrate and sessions judge is to inform the accused of their entitlement to bail in bailable offences.
Final Decision: Bail was granted to the petitioner, who was ordered to execute his own bond and appear before the police as and when required for interrogation.
Petition for bail.
2. Offences under Sections 147, 148, 302, 201 and 120(B) of IPC.
3. Petitioner is A5 in this case.
4. A1 is alleged to have had some illegal intimacy with the wife of the deceased. There were strained relationship. They are all construction workers.
5. On 24.2.2013, at a place near Kunnam Taluk in Perambalur District, A1 is alleged to have assaulted the deceased with a crow bar. The deceased sustained head injury. Subsequently, died.
6. In this connection, besides A1, several persons were arrested. One of them is A5. He is the petitioner herein. He was arrested and remanded on 26.1.2015.
7. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even taking the prosecution version of the case as such an offence under Section 302 of IPC is not warranted towards the petitioner because the petitioner has not participated in the killing of the deceased. At the most, without prejudice to the defence contention, he may be guilty of suppression of having not revealed the murder that he has witnessed. It may fall under Section 201 IPC and not under Section 302 IPC. Learned counsel further submitted that an offence under Section 201 IPC is bailable.
8. The learned Government Advocate would submit that petitioner is a co-accused in this case. He is aware of the murder. He has screened the offence.
9. I have considered the rival submissions.
10. Bail and jail are not benchmates. They are always antonyms. They cannot be synonyms. Jail is opposite to bail. Jail is antithesis of bail. Thus, it is jail vs. bail. One can be jailed only in accordance with law. One can be bailed as per law.
11. Chapter 33 of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with bail matters. For the purpose of bail, offences are classified as bailable and non bailable. These offences are listed in the first schedule to the Code of Criminal Procedure.
12. The characteristic feature of a bailable offence (see Section 436 Cr.P.C) is bail is as a matter of right. Jail is exception when the accused refuses to offer bail. However, in a non bailable offence (see Sections 438, 439 Cr.P.C), bail could be granted after giving opportunity to the prosecution and also considering the relevant principles governing the grant of bail. Thus, non-bailable does not mean not bailable.
13. As per Schedule I, an offence under Section 201 IPC is bailable. It is screening the offence. For this offence 'mens rea' is required. 'Mens rea' is expressed in two forms. One is having knowledge of the principal offence, namely, murder or any offence, the other one is, reason to believe that the principal offence has been committed.
14. It is screening/burking, hiding the offence. The other category is screening the offenders. There is also harbouring the criminal.
15. In Sathya vs. State {2014-1-L.W.(Crl.) 759}, a notorious criminal was murdered in Vellore and one of the assailants came running. A person took him in his bike as a pillion-rider, left him at the Vellore bus stand, thus, provided him safe passage. When the person, who so helped the criminal, in other words, screened the offender sought for bail, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed it on the ground that he is concerned in a murder case.
16. I have occasion to go deep into this matter. Sathya (supra) contains various guide lines to the learned Magistrates and learned Sessions Judges as to how to deal with such type of bailable offences. It was ruled that in such cases bail is the rule, jail is the exception. If a person wish to continue in jail, wants to be a State guest, refuses to go on bail, does not offer bail, then only bail can be dismissed, otherwise he is entitled to bail.
17. In the present case, petitioner is not a killer. He did not commit any overt act. He is alleged to have screened the offence.
18. Thus, Sathya (supra) squarely applies to the petitioner.
19. When the law on the point is very clear, when the Ist Schedule to code very clearly says that an offence under Section 201 IPC is bailable. The trial C
