A person who has been granted bail under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. cannot be remanded to judicial custody on a Non-Bailable Warrant.

Crl.OP.No.31308 of 2022

Crl.OP.No.31308 of 2022

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody

on 07.04.2022 for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 120(B),

147, 148, 449, 450, 454, 456, 302, 396, 396 r/w 397, 120(b) r/w. 149 and

109 of IPC and under Section 25(1)(a) of Arms Act in Crime No. 575 of

2002 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 12.09.2002, the

petitioner, along with other accused, had conspired between themselves and

entered into an agreement between them to send some of them to commit the

offence of dacoity in several places and to share such property between

themselves. In pursuance of the conspiracy, A1 and A2, along with other

accused, broke open the lock of the main outside gate and broke open the

main entrance of a building and trespassed into the house of the Obliraj,

voluntarily, caused hurt to the deceased Gopalan, Watchman of the said

house with iron rods.

1/13

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP.No.31308 of 2022

3. In furtherance of the above said common object, the accused

persons committed dacoity by trespassing into the above said house,

voluntarily, caused hurt to the deceased Thalamuthu Natarajan with iron

rods on several parts on his body. The Thalamuthu Natarajan died on the

way to the hospital due to head injuries caused by A1 and A2. The accused,

with an intent to cause death of the witness Obligaj attacked him; he brought

DBBL gun to safeguard him, the accused snatched the said DBBL gun from

the said witness. A1 caused hurt to the said witness on his shoulder with the

butt of said DBBL gun with such an intention.

4. Subsequently, the accused committed theft of 289 sovereigns

gold jewels and cash of Rs.15,000/-, Nokia Cell Phone, One Pistol, DBBL

gun with 20 rounds of ammunition from the above said house belonging to

the defacto complainant. Thus, the accused committed murder and dacoity,

snatched the DBBL gun from the witness Obliraj and used the said DBBL

gun without any valid license as per the Arms Act, at the time of

commission of the above said dacotiy and fired at the injured Saikumar and

Obliraj. Therefore, the defacto complainant lodged a complaint and a case

has been registered by the respondent police.

2/13

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP.No.31308 of 2022

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the

respondent completed the investigation and filed final report and the same

has been pending for committal in PRC No.14 of 2015. When the case was

posted on 23.02.2022 for appearance of the petitioner, he was unable to

appear before the Trial Court due to COVID-19 pandemic situation.

Therefore, Non-Bailable Warrant was issued against the petitioner and

subsequently, he was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on

07.04.2022. The Committal Court, straight away issued Non-Bailable

Warrant, without issuing summons to the petitioner to appear before the

Committal Court. The petitioner was originally arrested and granted

statutory bail under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. Therefore, without cancelling

the bail granted to the petitioner on default loss, he cannot be remanded to

judicial custody.

6. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgement of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in 2019 (3) MLJ (Crl) 351 in

the case of Palanivel Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police,

Veeranam Police Station, Salem District (Crime No.538 of 2003). The

3/13

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP.No.31308 of 2022

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that the accused was produced on PT

warrant he cannot be remanded but he can only be conveyed to prison.

Further it was held that the PT warrant can never be converted into a regular

warrant, when the accused is already on bail and thereby it does not