Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
Banshilal - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Crl.R.C.No.420 of 2025
Decided on : 25-03-2025
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 167(2) - Bail application - Petitioner sought bail after being in custody for more than 110 days without a charge sheet, following the transfer of the case to CBI. The Chief Judicial Magistrate dismissed the bail application due to lack of jurisdiction. The court emphasized that the right to statutory bail cannot be denied on technicalities and that the petitioner, being the owner of a chemical corporation linked to a liquor tragedy, was not a named accused initially but was implicated later. The petitioner’s detention under the Goondas Act was quashed, and the court found no charge sheet had been filed. (Paras 2, 6, 7)
(B) Bail - The court highlighted that the right to statutory bail is a constitutional guarantee and must be upheld, especially when there is no charge sheet filed within the stipulated time. The court referred to previous cases where similar rights were granted, indicating a consistent judicial approach. (Paras 3, 4, 6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was arrested in connection with a case involving the sale of illicit arrack leading to multiple deaths. The case was transferred from CBCID to CBI, and the petitioner had been in confinement for over 110 days without a charge sheet.
Findings of Court:
The court set aside the earlier dismissal of the bail application, stating the right to statutory bail cannot be denied due to procedural issues, and granted bail under specific conditions.
Issues: The main issues included the denial of bail based on jurisdictional matters and the failure to file a charge sheet within the statutory period.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the statutory right to bail must be respected and cannot be overridden by technicalities, especially when the accused has been in custody for an extended period without a charge sheet.
Result: The criminal revision case is allowed, and the petitioner is granted bail under specified conditions.
ORDER :
This Criminal Revision Case is filed to set aside the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kallakurichi in Crl.M.P.No.199 of 2025 dated 31.01.2025 in RC.4(S)/2025 now pending on the file of the Superintendent of Police, CBI/STB/Chennai and enlarge the petitioner on bail.
2. The petitioner/accused filed a bail application under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kallakurichi in Crl.M.P.No.199 of 2025 which was dismissed on 31.01.2025 for the reason that pursuant to the orders passed by this Court on 20.11.2024 confirmed by the Apex Court by order dated 17.12.2024, Crime No.3 of 2024 registered by CBCID, Villupuram has been transferred to CBI and re-registered as RC 4(S)/2025 on 25.01.2025. Since the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kallakurichi has now become functus officio and ceased of the matter, the petition was dismissed. Following the same, the petitioner filed a Statutory bail petition before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu, who had returned the petition on 04.03.2025, which reads as follows:
1) This petitioner/accused has already been filed a petition before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kallakurichi in Crl.M.P.No.199/2025 which was dismissed on 31.01.2025.
2) The case was filed by CBCID, Villupuram Cr.No.3/2024 u/s.328, 304(2) IPC and Sec 4(1)(i) and 4(1- A) of TN Prohibition Act relating to death of more persons due to the consumption of illicit arrack has been re-registered as CBI Cr.No.RC4(S)/2025/CBI/STB/Chennai.
3) CBI/STB, Chennai has been filed FIR against the accused in Cr.No.4/S/2025 on 21.01.2025 and the same was received by this Court only on 29.01.2025.
In view of the above reason this bail petition is not maintainable and hence this bail petition is returned.
Against which, the present petition is filed.
3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the bail petition of the petitioner in Crl.M.P.No.199 of 2025 was dismissed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kallakurichi on 31.01.2025, the petitioner filed a bail petition before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu on 01.03.2025 but the same was not entertained and returned on 04.03.2025. He would submit that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu returning the petitioner's bail petition without adjudication is not proper. Admittedly the petitioner was arrested in the above case on 24.06.2024. He would submit that the petitioner appeared before the Prohibition and Enforcement Department, St.Thomas Mount, gave his statement, thereafter he was taken to Kallakurichi on the same day and produced before the Additional Superintendent of Police, Cyber Crime Wing, Kallakurichi at DSP Camp Office where he was shown arrest. The allegation against the petitioner is that he is the owner of M/s.Divya Chemical Corporation at Chennai, he purchased NBA-Normal Butanol Alcohol (Printing), Toluene (Printing Rubber Solution), Ethyle Acetate (Printing), Thinner, MDC-Methylene Di Chloride, N-Hazane, Iso Propelye Alcohol, Acetone, Xylene, Acide from M/s.Lakshmi Enterprises, B.R.Traders, Vishnu Enterprises, Hyderabad and sold it to some person who had mixed with other chemicals and sold it as illicit arrack and by consuming the same, many innocent people died. He further submitted that pursuant to the petitioner's arrest, he was detained under Goondas Act by the District Collector, Kallakurichi by order dated 25.08.2024 and this Court in H.C.P.No.2528 of 2024 by order dated 06.01.2025 quashed the detention order. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the bail petition on the ground that in this case, the petitioner is in confinement for more than 110 days, interim charge sheet filed on 09.10.2024 returned and as on date, there is no charge sheet filed in the case but the Court below failed to consider the same. It is admitted that the interim final report returned to CBCID on 26.11.2024 and now the present Investigation Agency took up investigation
The right to statutory bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. cannot be denied on technical grounds when the accused has been in custody beyond the statutory period without a charge sheet.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the accused's indefeasible right to default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. and the obligations of the concerned Magistrate to promptly consider ....
The main legal point established is that the accused has an indefeasible right to default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. and the NDPS Act, and this right should not be denied due to delays or the ....
The main legal point established is that the accused has an indefeasible right to default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., and the court must take prompt action to enforce this right, restricting t....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the accused's indefeasible right to default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. and the prosecutor's obligations in seeking extension of time under S....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the accused's indefeasible right to default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. and the conditions for granting extension of time for investigation u....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the accused's indefeasible right to default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. and the limitations on the Prosecutor's rights under Section 36-A(4) ....
The procedural safeguards play an important role in protecting the liberty guaranteed by Article 21, and failure to adhere to these safeguards can result in a violation of the accused's rights under ....
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
