Back
2016 Supreme(Mad) 2001
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
V.M. VELUMANI, J.
Babu Florence Debora – Petitioner
Versus
The Inspector of Police, Sathankulam Police Station, Tirunelveli District and Others – Respondents
Crl. O.P. (MD) Nos. 2868 to 2870 of 2016
Decided On : 12-07-2016
For the Petitioner: Mr. M.P. Senthil
For the Respondent:Mr. P. Kannithevan, Government Advocate Mr. M. Alagappan
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of considering the gravity of charges and antecedents of the accused, as well as the need to disclose all relevant information when seeking anticipatory bail.
Headnote:
Anticipatory Bail - Criminal Law - Sections 498(A) IPC, Section 4 of TNPHW Act - 2012 (12) SCC 180, 2015 Cri. L.J. 4862, Crl. M.C. No. 3589 of 2014, 2006 Cri. L.J. 4435 - The court discussed the principles for granting bail and emphasized the gravity of the charges and antecedents of the accused in reaching its decision to cancel the anticipatory bail.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the accused who were charged under Sections 498(A) IPC and Section 4 of TNPHW Act. The accused had previously filed a petition for anticipatory bail before the court, which was dismissed as withdrawn. The petitioner alleged that the accused suppressed this fact and made false statements to obtain anticipatory bail from the Principal Sessions Judge.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accused had suppressed crucial information and made false statements to obtain anticipatory bail. The court also noted that the Principal Sessions Judge failed to consider the gravity of the charges and the principles for granting bail as established in relevant judgments.
Issues: The issues revolved around the suppression of facts by the accused, false statements made to obtain anticipatory bail, and the failure of the Principal Sessions Judge to consider the gravity of the charges and relevant legal principles.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision to cancel the anticipatory bail was based on the suppression of crucial information and false statements by the accused, as well as the failure of the Principal Sessions Judge to consider the gravity of the charges and relevant legal principles.
Final Decision: The court decided to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the accused based on the aforementioned findings and considerations.
These petitions have been filed praying to cancel the anticipatory bail granted in favour of the accused Nos.1 to 6 and 8, who have been shown as respondents 2 to 4 in Crl. O.P. (MD) No. 2868 of 2016, second respondent in Crl. O.P. (MD) No. 2869 of 2016 and respondents 2 to 4 in Crl. O.P. (MD) No. 2870 of 2016, vide orders dated 22.12.2015 and 17.12.2015 made in Crl. M.P. No. 4046, 4047 and 3967 of 2015 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tuticorin.
2. It is averred in the petitions that the petitioner is the de facto complainant in Crime No. 60 of 2013 on the file of the first respondent. She lodged a complaint before the first respondent and the same was registered for the offences under Sections 498(A) IPC and Section 4 of TNPHW Act. All the accused have filed Crl. O.P. (MD) No. 7828 of 2013 before this Court for anticipatory bail. The petitioner herein also filed an intervening petition in M.P. (MD) No. 1 of 2013. During pendency of the same, on the representation made on the side of the petitioners/accused that they will settle the matter, this Court referred the matter to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre attached to this Bench and granted interim anticipatory bail to them. During mediation, the accused persons did not appear before the Mediation Centre and since there was no co-operation on the side of the accused, failure report was filed and the matter was referred back to the Court. After taking several adjournments, on 03.06.2014, they sought permission to withdraw the said petition and this Court granted permission and accordingly the same was dismissed as withdrawn. Thereafter, when the first respondent police has not shown any interest in investigating the case, the petitioner filed a petition in Crl. O.P. (MD) No. 13555 of 2014, seeking transfer of investigation and this Court vide order dated 24.04.2015 directed the Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi to transfer the investigation of the case from the first respondent to any one of his jurisdictional police station and further directed him to monitor the investigation. Pursuant to the same, the investigation of the case has been transferred to the Inspector of Police, Tiruchendur. Thereafter, the accused 1 to 6 and 8 suppressing all the aforesaid facts, filed Crl. M.P. Nos. 4046, 4947 and 3967 of 2015 before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tuticorin and in the said petitions, they specifically mentioned that no other petition filed before any other Court. The learned Principal Sessions Judge without considering the above said facts, granted anticipatory bail to the accused. Therefore the petitioner has come up with the present petitions for cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted in favour of the accused 1 to 6 and 8 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tuticorin.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner/de facto complainant has reiterated the averments made in the petition and further submitted that the petitioner is not living with A.1 and false statement was made before the learned Principal Sessions Judge and the accused suppressed the fact that they already filed a petition for anticipatory bail before this Court and after several hearings, the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 21.10.2013.
4. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 30.06.2016, there was no representation on the side of the petitioner and respondents 2 to 4 in Crl. O.P. (MD) No. 2868 of 2016, second respondent in Crl. O.P. (MD) No. 2869 of 2016 and respondents 2 to 4 in Crl. O.P. (MD) No. 2870 of 2016 and therefore the matter was posted today under the caption for dismissal. Today also there was no representation on the side of the respondents 2 to 4 in Crl. O.P. (MD) No. 2868 of 2016, second respondent in Crl. O.P. (MD) No. 2869 of 2016 and respondents 2 to 4 in Crl. O.P. (MD) No. 2870 of 2016. Therefore, these petitions are disposed of considering the arguments advanced on the side of the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side).
5
