Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J.
G. Ramesh @ Gowtham Ramesh – Petitioner
Versus
The State Represented by its Inspector of Police – Respondent
Crl. O.P. No. 660 of 2024
Decided On : 29-02-2024
BAIL - Criminal Procedure - Section 439 of Cr.P.C., Sections 406, 420 of IPC, Section 5 of TNPID Act, 1997, Sections 3, 5 read with Section 21 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Scheme Act, 2019 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. regarding bail, emphasizing the necessity for a proper legal basis for remand and the implications of non-bailable warrants. It interpreted the conditions under which non-bailable warrants can be issued, referencing the need for judicial discretion and the balance between personal liberty and societal interest. The court also highlighted the procedural requirements for remanding an accused and the necessity of recording reasons for such decisions, ultimately influencing its decision to dismiss the petition for bail while allowing for a reconsideration of the remand order.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, accused in a case involving multiple FIRs for financial fraud, sought bail after being remanded to custody. The case involved allegations of collecting deposits from the public under false pretenses, leading to significant financial losses. The petitioner had previously been granted bail but failed to comply with the conditions, resulting in a non-bailable warrant being issued against him. After surrendering to the court, the petitioner contested the legality of the remand order issued without formally canceling the earlier bail.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Special Court was justified in issuing the non-bailable warrant due to the petitioner's failure to appear as required. It acknowledged the gravity of the offenses and the potential for the petitioner to abscond. However, it also noted that the remand order lacked sufficient reasoning and did not explicitly state the forfeiture of the bail bond, which is necessary for a lawful remand.
Issues: 'Whether the Special Court under TNPID Act was justified in issuing a non-bailable warrant.', 'Whether the remand order passed without canceling the bail granted earlier is legally sustainable.'
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that non-bailable warrants should only be issued when there is a reasonable belief that the accused will not appear voluntarily. It emphasized the need for courts to exercise discretion judiciously, balancing individual liberty against societal interests. The court also highlighted that a remand order must be supported by reasons, particularly when it involves the cancellation of bail.
Final Decision: The petition for bail was dismissed, but the court allowed the petitioner a chance to be heard again regarding the remand order, directing the Special Judge to record reasons for either accepting the surrender and granting bail or forfeiting the bond.
ORDER :
Prayer: Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with a case in Crime No. 3 of 2019 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police.
1. The second accused in Crime No. 3 of 2019 registered by the respondent police under Sections 406, 420 of IPC and Section 5 of TNPID Act, 1997 and Sections 3, 5 read with Section 21 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Scheme Act, 2019, who was remanded to custody on 26.02.2021 seeks bail.
2. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner raised a ground for grant of bail which incidentally had not been mentioned in the Petition.
3. The entire disputes surrounds the order dated 06.06.2023 passed by the Special Judge, Special Court for TNPID Act Cases, Coimbatore. Before examining that particular order, it would only be appropriate that a few background facts are stated.
4. On a complaint received, the respondent had registered FIR in Cr.No. 3 of 2019 under Sections 406, 420 of IPC and Section 5 of the TNPID Act and Sections 3, 5 read with 21 of BUDS Act against Universal Trading Solution Private Limited at Coimbatore and against four other individuals, who were said to be the Managing Director and partners of the said first accused. The present petitioner was shown as the second accused.
5. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused had collected deposits from the general public promising high returns as well as interest. A total number of 61 FIRs have been registered on complaints being received at various places in States of Tamilnadu, Kerala and in Union Territory of Puducherry. FIRs also registered at Salem City Crime Branch, Sivagangai District Crime Branch, Nagarkoil Economic Offence Wing, Thiruvallur District Crime Branch. Apart from the respondent, all the other accused had absconded and had filed anticipatory bail applications.
6. It must also be stated that independently the Income Tax department had also conducted a raid in the first accused company and had seized cash of Rs.9.38 crores on 30.03.2019 and had frozen 12 bank accounts with balance of Rs.20.82 crores. Thereafter, searches were made in various places. The entire case was then transferred to the TNPID Court at Coimbatore. Totally as on August 2018, 31 complaints had been received and the default amount was said to be Rs.38.20 lakhs.
7. This petitioner then filed a Petitions seeking anticipatory bail and a learned Single Judge of this Court had, by order dated 19.08.2019 directed the petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer / DSP, EOW, Coimbatore. The accused however failed to appear.
8. The petitioner then filed W.P.No. 24057 of 2019 before this Court stating that the property seized must be sold in a transparent manner. A learned Single Judge of this Court, by order dated 27.08.2019 had appointed Hon'ble Mr.Justice K.N.Basha, a former Judge of this Court as One Man Committee to disburse the deposits to the depositors. The petitioner herein was then arrested on 12.09.2020 in yet another case registered by Salem City Crime Branch in FIR in Cr.No. 13 of 2020 also under Section 420 IPC and Section 4 of Price chits Money Circulation Scheme Banning Act 1978. The learned Single Judge who had been appointed in the Writ Petition, Hon'ble Mr.Justice K.N.Basha, filed report that a sum of Rs. 22,93,85,840/- had been disbursed to 1174 depositors.
9. Thereafter, on 26.02.2021, this petitioner was arrested in this case in FIR in Crime No. 3 of 2019 through PT Warrant. He had then been remanded to custody. Since the charge sheet was not filed, the petitioner was granted bail by TNPID Court at Coimbatore in Crl.M.P.No. 1399 of 2021 by an order dated 01.06.2021 with condition that he must appear before the Court every day for a period of 60 days. This order was relaxed in Crl.M.P.No. 769 of 2022 and was modified to appear before the Sultanpettai Police Station every Monday at 10.30 a.m., for the remaining 23 weeks
The issuance of non-bailable warrants and remand orders must be supported by clear reasoning and a proper legal basis, ensuring that the rights of the accused are balanced with the interests of justi....
(1) In bailable offence, right of accused to get bail is absolute and indefeasible right and courts have no discretion in granting bail.(2) Criminal Courts should consider bail applications particula....
The judgment established that the issuance of a non-bailable warrant should follow proper procedure and judicial guidelines, including the recording of satisfaction by the court.
Non-bailable warrants cannot be issued in a routine manner and must be supported by specific reasons to protect individual liberties under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution.
Issuance of Non-Bailable Warrants requires specific justifications and must not occur routinely; individual liberty should be prioritized unless necessitated by compelling circumstances.
Non-bailable warrants should not be issued routinely and must be justified with specific reasons, emphasizing the balance between individual rights and public interest.
The jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail exists even after a non-bailable warrant is issued, emphasizing judicial discretion in such matters.
Non-bailable warrants cannot be issued routinely; courts must provide adequate reasoning and evidence to justify such action, ensuring individual liberty is not curtailed without necessity.
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
