O R D E R

This Criminal Revision is filed against the order passed by the 1st respondent in MC No.95/2021(A3), dated 13.05.2021.

2.It is seen from the records that there is an allegation against the petitioner that he was indulging several criminal activities and in this regard, the 1st respondent passed an order on 24.02.2021 against the petitioner under section 117 r/w 110(e) Cr.P.C and consequent to that, the petitioner has executed a bond to maintain good behavour for a period one year and also undertaken to pay Rs.50,000/- and also undertakes to obey the proceedings under section 122(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. In the meanwhile, on 31.03.2021, a criminal case in Crime No.149 of 2021 for the offence under sections 147, 148, 342, 302 IPC r/w 109, 120(B) IPC was registered against the petitioner by the 2nd respondent police. The petitioner was summoned to appear on 07.05.2021 and 13.05.2021 to submit his explanation. The petitioner appeared before the 1st respondent on 07.05.2021 and gave his explanation denying the allegation. Subsequently, the 1st respondent passed the impugned order, dated 13.05.2021. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner is before this court by way of filing this criminal revision.

3.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

4.Even though various grounds were raised in the grounds of appeal, it is mainly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused that before passing the impugned order, no reasonable opportunity was given and prays that the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent is liable to be set aside. In support of his contention, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon the following judgments:-

(1)2015 SCC Online Mad.2417 (Karthigayan @ Pallukarthik Vs. The Sub Divisional Magistrate-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Thanjavur, Thanjavur District and others);

2.2016 SCC Online Mad.33724 ( Murali Vs. Sub Divisional Magistrate and Assistant Collector, Sivakasi, Virudhunagar District and another);

3.2016 SCC Online Mad.21568 (Bala @ Balakrishnan Vs. The Administrative Executive Magistrate-cum-Deputy Commissioner of Police, Wooraiyur Police Station, Trichy District);

4.2016 SCC Online Mad.23460 (Balamurugan Vs. State rep. by the Inspector of Police, (Law and Order), Palayamkottai Police Statin, Tirunelveli City);

5.2016 SCC Online Mad.9614 (Muthu @

Muthuraja Vs. State by the Executive Magistrte-cum-Deputy Superintendent of Police, Pulianthope District Chennai 600 012);

6.2017 SCC Online Mad.37659 (Selvam Vs. Executive Magistrate-cum-Deputy Commissioner of Police and another);

7.2017 SCC Online Mad.29305 (Sekar @

Jabasekar Vs. The Inspector of Police, S-14, Peerkanakaranai Police Station, Chennai-45);

8.2019 SCC Online Mad.20285 (P.Sathish Vs. State rep. by the Inspector of Police Law &

Order and another);

9.2019 SCC Online Mad.18400 (Ashik Mohammed Vs. Executive Magistrate/The Revenue Divisional Officer);

10.2020 SCC Online Mad.616 (Shanmugam Vs. Sub Divisional Magistrate-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer and another);

11.2020 SCC Online Mad.2706 (Devi Vs.

Executive Magistrate-cum-Deputy Commissioner of Police and another); and 12.2020 SCC Online Mad.1902 (P.Kumar Vs. State of Tamil Nadu represented by the Executive Magistrate/Revenue Divisional Officer).

5.On the other hand, on the side of the respondents, it is argued that the 1st respondent passed the order only after giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and prays for dismissal of the criminal revision.

6.In this case, already the 2nd respondent police issued summons to the accused to execute a bond of Rs.50,000/- under section 111 of the Criminal Procedure Code and accordingly, the accused executed the bond for Rs.50,000/- and in case any breach of conditions during that period of bond, the accused should be imprisoned for the remaining period under section 122(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. Further, it was brought to the notice of this court that the accused committed breach of bo