1. The State has preferred this Criminal Original Petition challenging the order passed by the learned XIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore in Crime No.212 of 2018, refusing to remand the accused who was produced after the arrest by the petitioner police.

2. The petitioner police registered an FIR in Crime No.212 of 2018 for an offence under Section 124 of IPC against the respondent and 34 others, on the complaint given by the Deputy Secretary to the Governor and Comptroller, Tamil Nadu, Raj Bhavan, Chennai.

3. The sum and substance of the complaint given against the respondent is that “Nakkeeran” a bi-weekly Tamil magazine in its periodicals published between April to September 2018, has published fake / derogatory news about His Excellency the Governor of Tamil Nadu with an intention to prevent the Governor from exercising his lawful powers and duties and the same amounts to an offence under Section 124 of IPC.

4. Pursuant to the registration of the FIR, the petitioner police proceeded to arrest the respondent on 09.10.2018 and produced him before the Learned Magistrate for remand. The Learned Magistrate after going through the remand report and case diary and after hearing the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for either parties, refused to remand the respondent on the ground the police have not produced sufficient materials, justifying the remand. The learned Judicial Magistrate further gave liberty to the police to come up with sufficient materials and also directed the respondent to execute a bail bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) on condition that he will appear whenever called for interrogation by the police and before the Court.

5. Mr.A.Ramesh, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the state assailing the order passed by the learned Magistrate, made the following submissions :-

5.1. The learned Magistrate did not apply his mind to the sufficient materials that were produced by the police by way of remand report and case diary.

5.2 The learned Magistrate heard Mr.N.Ram, the Chairman of Hindu Publications and has even recorded his submissions in the impugned order and therefore, the learned Magistrate was swayed by extraneous considerations while considering the remand of the accused person.

5.3 Mr.N.Ram, the Chairman of Hindu publications did not have the locus standi to make his submissions before the Court and he was a rank outsider insofar as the present proceedings are concerned and therefore, the entire process adopted by the learned Magistrate while deciding the remand of the accused was not in accordance with law.

5.4 The learned Magistrate did not record the reasons for rejecting the remand as required under Section 167 (ii) of Cr.PC and as required by the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 2014 SC 2756 [Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar].

5.5 The learned Magistrate was not clear about the decision taken by him, since on the one hand, the learned Magistrate has rejected the remand, but on the other hand the learned Magistrate has directed the respondent to execute the bail bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/-. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that there is total non-application of mind on the part of the learned Magistrate while passing the impugned order.

5.6 The learned Senior counsel also made an alternative submission to the effect that even if it is taken that the learned Magistrate has directed the respondent to execute a bond in exercise of his power under Section 59 of the Code of Criminal procedure, a special order has to be passed which should contain the reasons as to why the Court while rejecting the remand wanted the respondent to execute a bail bond.

5.7 The series of articles published by the respondent was fake and derogatory and it was done with the sole intention of preventing His Excellency the Governor of Tamil Nadu from exercising his lawful powers and duties and such article had the effect of overawing the Governor,