ORDER

This revision has been filed as against the order passed in M.C.38/2018/A7, dated 20.01.2021, on the file of the first respondent, thereby detained the petitioner for the remaining bond period.

2.The petitioner involved in a case in Crime No.398 of 2018 registered for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 447 and 302 of I.P.C. In order not to indulge in future crimes, he was directed to execute bond under Section 110 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the petitioner was directed to appear on 25.10.2018 as to why the petitioner should not execute the bond to maintain peace and tranquility. Accordingly, he appeared and enquiry was conducted as contemplated under Section 116 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, under Section 112 of C.P.C, the order was passed and directed to execute the bond. Accordingly, the petitioner executed the bond for a period of three years. While pending the bond period, the petitioner again involved in Crime No.1523 of 2020 on the file of the second respondent registered for the offences under Sections 147, 365, 323 and 364(A) of I.P.C. In pursuant to the crime, he was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 08.01.2020. It was informed by the second respondent before the first respondent to initiate action under Section 122(1)(b) of Cr.P.C for violation of bond condition. On receipt of the same, the first respondent issued notice to the petitioner on 18.01.2021 to appear for the enquiry to be conducted on 19.01.2021. Accordingly, the petitioner was produced before the first respondent for enquiry on 19.01.2021. On the enquiry, he sought for an opportunity to examine the Government witnesses and permission to engage counsel to putforth his case. However, the first respondent on the very next day ie., on 20.01.2021, without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without giving an opportunity to engage the counsel on his behalf, passed the impugned order.

3.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.

4.In this regard, it is relevant to rely upon the Judgment of this Court reported in 2019 (2) MLJ (Criminal) 556 – P.Sathish @ Sathish Kumar Vs. State, represented By The Inspector of Police, Law and Order, Chennai and Another and this Court issued specific directions to follow the legal principles which reads as follows:-

“a. Notice to be sent to the person by the Executive Magistrate to show cause as to why action under Section 122(1)(b) of Cr.P.C should not be taken for breach of the bond executed under Section

117 Cr.P.C on a date fixed.

b. At the enquiry, the Executive Magistrate should furnish the person the materials sought to be relied upon, including statements of witnesses, if any, in the vernacular (if the person is not knowing the language other than his mother tongue).

c. If the person wishes to engage an Advocate to represent him at the enquiry, an opportunity to have a counsel of his choice should be provided to him.

d. The Executive Magistrate shall inform the person about his right to have the assistance of a lawyer for defending him in the enquiry.

e. The enquiry shall be conducted by the Executive Magistrate on the notified date or such other date as may be fixed and the person should be allowed to participate in the same.

f. At the enquiry, an opportunity should be given to the person to:

(i) Cross-examine the official witnesses, if any and (ii) produce documents and witnesses, if any, in support of his case.

g. Such Executive Magistrate or his successor in office, should then, apply his mind on the materials available on record, in the enquiry, and pass speaking order.

h. An order under Section 122(1)(b) of Cr.P.C should contain the grounds upon which the Executive Magistrate is satisfied that the person has breached the bond.

i. A copy of the order should be furnished to the person along with the materials produced at the enquiry.

j. The enquiry, as far as possibl