BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 30.01.2024 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP CRL.O.P (MD) No.1058 of 2024 Hakkem ...Petitioner vs The Inspector of Police, Sethubavachathiram, , Thanjavur District.

Crime No.206 of 2015 ...Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying, to direct the Learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Peravoorani, Thanjavur District to recall the non Bailable Warrant issued against the petitioner in P.R.C.No.6 of 2022 pending on the file of the Learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Peravoorani, Thanjavur District in Crime No.206 of 2015 on the file of the respondent police within the time stipulated by this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.M.Karunakaran For Respondent : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor O R D E R This Criminal Original Petition is filed to direct the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Peravoorani, Thanjavur District to recall the non Bailable Warrant issued against the Petitioner in P.R.C.No.6 of

2022 in Crime No.206 of 2015 on the file of the Respondent.

2.The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner was issued with non bailable warrant in PRC.No.6 of 2022 pending on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Peravoorani, Thanjavur District. It is his further submission that the Petitioner may be granted a chance to appear before the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Peravoorani, Thanjavur District and on such appearance, the petition to be filed by the Petitioner shall be disposed of by granting him bail.

3.It is to be noted that P.R.C.No.6 of 2022 indicates that it is a Sessions Case, not triable by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate. As per the reported ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P.K.Shaji Vs. State of Kerala reported in (2005) AIR SCW 5560, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had insisted Courts granting bail to insist on the conditions on the accused, Petitioner in the bail petition to cooperate with the pending investigation and also after investigation, to cooperate with the trial Court for trial.

4.In cases before this Court, it is found that the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji Vs. State of Kerala reported in (2005) AIR SCW 5560 had not been taken note of either by the Members of the Bar, who appear for the accused and seek bail or by the accused themselves or by the Police Officials. For the Investigating Officer, the said ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court had indicated that if the accused, who was granted bail, does not comply with the conditions in either cooperating with the investigation or after investigation in not cooperating with the trial Court, the Investigating Officer or the Police Officer concerned shall approach the nearest Judicial Magistrate, who has jurisdiction over the Police Station concerned and seek cancellation of bail, as though the bail was granted by the learned Judicial Magistrate. In spite of giving such discretion to the Police Officer concerned, they had not done so.

5.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the case is of the year 2015. PRC.6 of 2022 means, the case against this accused was split up from S.C.No.155 of 2019 to PRC.No.6 of 2022. In support of his submission, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor had relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Pillappan Vs. the Inspector of Police reported in 2018 SCC Online Mad 13298, wherein this Court had held as under:

“26. To reiterate, Sec. 446-A of the Code was included by the

1980 Amendment in order to curb the menace of bail jumping. It is a trite law that cancellation of bail is not synonymous to cancellation of bail bond and this has been recognised by this Court in Prabakaran vs. State [2010 (2) MLJ (Crl.) 353], wherein, a learned Single Judge of this Court has held in no uncertain terms as under:

“16. Thus, it emerges tacitly clear that prio