The importance of following legal principles, ensuring the right to legal assistance, and conducting proper enquiry in proceedings under Section 110 Cr.P.C and Section 122(1)(b) of Cr.P.C.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C, to call for the records of the proceedings in Na.Ka.No.07/2022/A3, dated 09.05.2022 on the file of the first respondent and set aside the same.)

1. The Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order, dated 09.05.2022 passed by the first respondent/II Class Executive Magistrate/Tahsildar, Dindigul East, Dindigul District, in Na.Ka.No.07/2022/A3, under Section 122(1) (d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The first respondent, on the basis of the report of the second respondent, initiated proceedings under Section 110 Cr.P.C, in LIR No.02/2022 on 01.04.2022, conducted enquiry and ordered the petitioner to execute a bond under Section 110 Cr.P.C on 01.04.2022 and on that basis, the petitioner has been bound over and released, after executing a bond, for maintaining good behaviour for a period of six months viz., from 01.04.2022 to 30.09.2022. Subsequently, a criminal case was registered on 11.04.2022 against the petitioner in Crime No.79 of 2022 for the offence punishable under Section 8 (c) r/w 20(b) (ii)(B) NDPS Act and the petitioner was arrested and was remanded to judicial custody on the same day. The second respondent, by alleging that the petitioner violated/breached the bond executed by him, has sent a communication, requesting the first respondent to initiate necessary action under Section 122(1) (b) Cr.P.C. Based on the said report of the second respondent, the first respondent issued a show cause notice to the petitioner and after enquiry, first respondent after enquiry, has passed the impugned order vide proceedings in Na.Ka.No.07/2022/A3, dated 09.05.2022, cancelling the security bond executed by the petitioner on 01.04.2022 and ordered to detain him in prison until the expiry of the period of bond viz., 30.09.2022. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has preferred the present revision.

3. Heard Mr.R.Mariappan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondents.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order has been passed without following the procedure laid down by this Court, that the first respondent has not conducted proper enquiry as prescribed in the law, that the petitioner's right to get legal assistance was denied, that no opportunity was given to the petitioner to get the documents, that the first respondent has failed to supply all the documents mentioned in the impugned order, that the learned Magistrate has no power to invoke Section 122 (1)(b) of Cr.P.C for the violation of the bond executed under Section 110 Cr.P.C and that the personal liberty of the petitioner was seriously affected by the impugned order passed by the first respondent.

5. A learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the State would submit that the petitioner has been continuously and frequently involving in various criminal activities and caused various problem against the public peace and tranquillity, that during the pendency of the bond period, the petitioner was involved in an offence for which, FIR came to be registered in Crime No.79 of 2022 for the offence punishable under Section 8 (c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) NDPS Act, that since the petitioner has violated the bond, at the instance of the second respondent, the first respondent has initiated the proceedings, that the first respondent after conducting proper enquiry has passed the order on 09.05.2022, cancelling the security bond and ordered to detain him till the expiry of the bond period, that the petitioner is the habitual offender and ten criminal cases are pending against him as of now, that the petitioner was given sufficient opportunities as per the procedure enumerated under Cr.P.C and that therefore, the question of setting aside the order passed by the first respondent does not arise at all.

6. No doubt, the second respondent in their coun