Back
2015 Supreme(Mad) 2076
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P. DEVADASS, J.
State Represented by the Inspector of Police, Kanchipuram District – Petitioner
Versus
Kutty @ Venkatesan – Respondent
Crl. O.P. No. 9557 of 2015
Decided On : 18-06-2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: S. Shanmugavelayutham Public Prosecutor Assisted by P. Govindarajan Additional Public Prosecutor.
For the Respondent:N.R. Elango, Senior Counsel for R. Vivekananthan, Advocate.
The judgment emphasizes the need for valid grounds to cancel bail, the relevance of precedent in similar fact situations, and the distinction of the present case from a previous case involving consideration of irrelevant materials in granting bail.
Headnote:
Anticipatory Bail - Criminal Procedure Code - Section 439(2) - Sections 294(b), 384, 506(i) of I.P.C. - The court discussed the principles governing grant, refusal, or cancellation of bail, emphasizing the need for judicious exercise of judicial discretion and adherence to constitutional mandates. The court also highlighted the relevance of precedent in similar fact situations and distinguished the present case from a previous case involving consideration of irrelevant materials in granting bail.
Fact of the Case:
The petition was filed to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the Chairman of Sriperumbudur Town Panchayat, who was alleged to have committed offenses under sections 294(b), 384, and 506(i) of I.P.C. The prosecution sought cancellation based on the petitioner's criminal background and past involvement in a murder case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's past involvement in a murder case, although not brought to the court's notice during the grant of anticipatory bail, did not provide valid grounds to withdraw the bail order. The court emphasized the need for valid grounds to cancel bail and dismissed the petition.
Issues: The main issue was whether the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner should be cancelled based on his criminal background and past involvement in a murder case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for valid grounds to cancel bail, the relevance of precedent in similar fact situations, and the distinction of the present case from a previous case involving consideration of irrelevant materials in granting bail.
Final Decision: The petition to cancel the anticipatory bail was dismissed by the court.
P. DEVADASS, J.
1. This petition has been filed under section 439(2) of Cr. P.C. by the dejure complainant viz., the Inspector of Police, C-1 Sunguvarchatram Police Station, Kanchipuram District to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to A-1/Kutti @ Venkatesan by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.7289 of 2015 on 30.3.2015
2. A-1 is the Chairman of Sriperumbudur Town Panchayat in Kanchipuram District. He is alleged to have committed offences under sections 294(b), 384 and 506(i) of I.P.C. on 17.3.2015.
3. The complaint has been lodged by one Vilvarani Murugan, Dy. General Manager, Samsung India Electronics Ltd. This case in Cr.No.112 of 2015 has been registered by the Inspector of Police, C-1 Sunguvarchatram Police Station, Kanchipuram District. In this case A-1 filed Crl.O.P.No.7289 of 2015 under section 438 Cr. P.C. seeking anticipatory bail.
4. On 30.3.2015 he was granted anticipatory bail by this Court. Paragraph Nos.8 to 11 of the said order runs as under:
''8. Samsung Industry is a Multi National Company in Sriperumpudur, an industrial hub. The factory lies within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat Union under the control of Kutty @ Venkatesan. He and the few Ward Councilors were alleged to have demanded certain sum of money, because their company had not obtained permission to put up certain buildings and they were also alleged to have demanded one Colour T.V. from the said company.
9. None injured. At the time of occurrence, they were not possessing any weapons. It is seen that it has cast them heavily. Statement of the company officials and other witnesses have been recorded.
10. In the circumstances, I am inclined to grant them anticipatory bail on the following terms and conditions;
11. Ordered as under:
(i) Anticipatory bail granted to petitioner in 7289 of 2015 and petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.7347 of 2015;
(ii) Petitioners shall surrender before the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur, Kancheepuram District, within 15 days of receipt of a copy of the order;
(iii) Petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.7289 of 2015 shall execute a bond for Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the said Magistrate;
(iv) Petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.7347 of 2015 shall execute a bond for Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) each with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the said Magistrate;
(iv) Petitioners shall stay in Vadalur in Cuddalore District and report before the Inspector of Police, Vadalur daily at 10.30 am until further orders.''
5. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that A-1 has criminal background, he is an accused in Kumaran murder case registered by Sriperumbudur Police in Cr.No.904 of 2012 for offences under Sections 147, 148, 448, 325, 302 I.P.C. r/w Sec.3 and 5 of Explosive Substances Act, he is an history sheeter and an habitual offender.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that on 30.3.2015 when Crl.O.P.No.7289 of 2015 was heard, the said antecedents of A-1 has not been brought to the notice of this Court. It is a relevant aspect which ought to have been placed before this Court, had it been placed, it would have had a reflection on the Court in taking a decision in his anticipatory bail petition.
7. The learned Public Prosecutor would cite Dinesh M.N.(S.P.) vs. State of Gujarat (2008(5) SCC 66), refer its paragraph No.27 and submit that in the said case where irrelevant materials were taken into account by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in granting bail to the accused, the Hon'ble Apex Court considered the bail order as vulnerable and held that the High Court has rightly interfered with such a bail order. In the facts and circumstances according to the learned Public Prosecutor, A-1 does not deserve the indulgence of the Court and he could not be allowed to remain at large. Thus, it becomes necessary to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to him.
8. On the other-hand, the learned Senior counsel for the responde
