Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
G. ILANGOVAN, J.
S.N. Yogapriyangaa & Others – Appellants
Versus
The Sub Inspector of Police, Thanthonimalai P.S Karur District & Others – Respondents
Crl.OP(MD) Nos . 11106, 11108, 11110, 11111, 11112 and 11115 of 2023
Decided On : 28-07-2023
Criminal - Bail Cancellation - Income Tax Act - Sections 132, 143, 323, 353, 506(ii), 341, 294(b), 427, 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the gravity and seriousness of the offences under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, and emphasized the duty of the court to find prima facie grounds against the accused. The court also referred to established parameters for granting bail and emphasized the need for judicious exercise of discretion by the trial court. The judgment highlighted the distinction between rejection of bail at the initial stage and cancellation of bail after it has been granted, and emphasized the need for overwhelming circumstances to warrant cancellation of bail. The court also referred to the importance of considering the conduct of the accused during the investigation and the necessity for recovery of articles and documents while considering bail applications.
Fact of the Case:
The de-facto complainants, who were public officers, were prevented from discharging their official duties during search operations under the Income Tax Act. They were manhandled, verbally abused, and physically assaulted by mobs, resulting in the snatching of official documents and other misconduct. The accused filed bail applications, which were granted by the trial court, leading to the filing of petitions seeking cancellation of bail.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court had not adequately considered the gravity and seriousness of the offences and had failed to follow established parameters for granting bail. It emphasized the need for prima facie grounds against the accused and highlighted the distinction between rejection of bail at the initial stage and cancellation of bail after it has been granted. The court also emphasized the importance of considering the conduct of the accused during the investigation and the necessity for recovery of articles and documents while considering bail applications.
Issues: The issues revolved around the adequacy of the trial court's consideration of the gravity and seriousness of the offences, the established parameters for granting bail, and the distinction between rejection of bail at the initial stage and cancellation of bail after it has been granted. The court also addressed the necessity for considering the conduct of the accused during the investigation and the need for recovery of articles and documents while considering bail applications.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the failure of the trial court to adequately consider the gravity and seriousness of the offences and to follow established parameters for granting bail. It emphasized the need for prima facie grounds against the accused and highlighted the distinction between rejection of bail at the initial stage and cancellation of bail after it has been granted. The court also emphasized the importance of considering the conduct of the accused during the investigation and the necessity for recovery of articles and documents while considering bail applications.
Final Decision: The court remitted all the matters back to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karur, and directed the bail applications to be decided by a Senior Judge. It set aside the bail orders and directed the accused to surrender before the trial court. The bail applications were restored to file on the respective courts and transferred to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karur, for a fresh decision without being influenced by the previous observations made by the court.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer:Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C., to cancel the bail granted to the accused in Crl.M.P No.3945 of 2023, dated 01/06/2023 by the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Karur.)
1. The de-facto complainant lodged a complaint stating that she is working as Deputy Director of Income Tax, Unit-1(4), Chennai. A search warrant was issued under section 132 of the Income Tax Act to carry out the same in the premises of Subramaiam, who is a Partner of Kongu Mess, Karur. On 26/05/2023 at about 07.05 am, when they were executing the work, they were manhandled and physically assaulted, prevented from discharging the duty, by a mob of more than 50 people. They snatched away the search warrant, confidential documents and the office seal. The above said office seal belongs to the Government of India, pertaining to the Income Tax Department. And also, there were verbal abuse and criminal intimidation and gender shaming comments. The Tax Assistant was badly beaten, which resulted in swelling on the face. They managed to come out of the above said premises of Subramaniam.
2. On the basis of the above said occurrence, a case in Crime No.260 of 2023 was registered for the offences punishable under sections 143, 323, 353 IPC. During the course of investigation, sections were altered to sections 147, 323, 353 and 506(ii) IPC. The alteration report was also submitted.
3. The facts in brief in Crime No.376 of 2023 (Crl.OP(MD)Nos.11110 and 11115 of 2023)
The de-facto complainant is one K.Krishnakanth, Assistant Director of Income Tax (Investigation) Unit-2(2), Chennai. He lodged a complaint stating that he along with the nominated officers, made search operation under section 132 of the Income Tax Act in the premises of one Gunasekaran, at No.23, Sengunthapuram, 3rd Cross, Karur-639 002. On 25/05/2023, it was executed at 06.45 am. On that day, while performing their official duty, they were prevented, obstructed, physically assaulted and manhandled by a mob of more than 100 people, who barged into the premises, verbally abused, threatened, snatched away the confidential official documents. At the intervention of the Deputy Superintendent of Police only, they managed to come out of the place belongs to Marappa Gounder Gunasekaran. They returned the office laptop and 4 pen-drives to the petitioners. But failed to return one pen-drive.
4. On the basis of the above said occurrence, a case in Crime No.376 of 2023 was registered for the offences under sections 173, 323 and 353 IPC. During the course of investigation, altered the sections 147, 323, 353 and 506(ii) IPC. Alteration report was also submitted.
5. The brief facts in Crime No.377 of 2023 (Crl.OP(MD)No.11111 of 2023):-
The de-facto complainant namely Smt.Gayathry, who is working as Inspector of Income Tax (Investigation) Unit-4(4), Chennai. In the complaint, she has stated that on 26/05/2022 at about 09.00 am, along with her team members, went to conduct search in the house of one Ashok Kumar situated at Ramakrishnapuram, Karur. At the time of search, the house was found locked. The upstairs portion was occupied by third parties. On enquiry, they have stated that Ashok Kumar whereabouts is not known. At that time, a mob of more than 50 persons gathered and they also scolded them. Arjun, one of the team member was surrounded by the mob, who was abused. About 8 to 10 persons entered into the place, she was manhandled, abused and touched inappropriately and she was also assaulted. They prevented the petitioners from getting into the Car. The mob, damaged the front glass of the Car. Other persons damaged the rear view mirror. They also prevented them from moving away from that place. At the intervention of the police, they were escorted out of the place. She was taken to the hospital from where the statement was recorded.
6. Upon which, a case in Crime No.377 of 2023 was registered for the offences under sections 147, 323, 353 and 427 IPC. Du
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for the trial court to consider the gravity and seriousness of the offences, follow established parameters for granting bail, and distingu....
The court has the authority to cancel bail if the order suffers from serious infirmities resulting in miscarriage of justice, and if the accused misuses their liberty, interferes with the investigati....
Superior court interferes with bail grant only if order arbitrary, perverse or ignores material like offence gravity; distinct from cancellation for supervening circumstances.
Cancellation of Bail – Court while granting bail has not considered the nature and gravity of the accusations, severity of the punishment in the event of bail, likelihood of repetition of the offence....
Bail should not be cancelled without clear evidence of violation of conditions or misuse of liberty, as established by the court's analysis.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that consistent violation of court directions and non-compliance with previous court orders can warrant the cancellation of bail. Additionally, the....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
