Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 79903
MADRAS HIGH COURT
S. Manikumar, J
Karthik alias Gate Kartik v. Executive Magistrate and Deputy Commissioner of Police Wannarapet District Chennai and Another
Criminal Revision No.234 of 2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners: [Counsel Name]
For the Respondents:[Government Advocate Name]
The court emphasized the necessity of evidence from the complainant in bond cancellation proceedings.
Headnote:In this criminal revision under Section 110 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner challenged the cancellation of his bond by the Executive Magistrate due to alleged involvement in new criminal cases. The court found that the defacto complainant did not support the prosecution, leading to a lack of evidence to justify the bond cancellation. The court framed the issue of whether proceedings under Section 122(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. were warranted under such circumstances. Ultimately, the order of the Executive Magistrate was set aside and the case directed to proceed without influence from the court's observations.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details regarding the revisions and initial circumstances of the bond. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding the validity of the bond's cancellation. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's observations on the evidence and implications for judicial processes. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. final ruling and directives for future proceedings. (Para 9) |
1. The present criminal revision has been filed to call for the entire records in connection with M.P.No.02 of 2021 in LIR.No.26 / Sec.Pro / DCP WPT / 2020 on the file of the Executive Magistrate and Deputy Commissioner of Police, Wannarapet district and set aside the order passed by the Executive Magistrate and Deputy Commissioner of Police, Wannarapet District, dated 02.06.2021 in M.P.No.02 of 2021 in LIR.No.26 / Sec.Pro / DCP WPT / 2020 in H8 Thiruvottiyur P S. Sl.No.75/2020 Under S.110 of Cr.P.C.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is involved in the cases in Crime No.1748 of 2016 under S.147, S.148, S.341, S.294(b), S.324, S.307, S.506(ii) IPC r/w S.34 IPC, Crime No.1760 of 2016 under S.341, S.294(b), S.336, S.427, S.392, S.397, S.506(ii) IPC, Crime No.1088 of 2018 under S.294(b), S.506(ii) IPC, Crime No.1156 of 2018 under S.341, S.387, S.506(ii) IPC, Crime No.175 of 2019 under S.147, S.148, S.341, S.294(b), S.324, S.307 and S.506(ii) IPC and Crime No.5554 of 2020 under S.341, S.294(b), S.323, S.307, S.506(ii) IPC and he obtained a bond under S.110 of Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as ''Cr.P.C.'' for short). Subsequently, the petitioner is alleged to have involved in Crime No.11 of 2021 for the offence under S.294(b), S.341, S.384 and S.506(ii) of IPC and he was arrested and remanded to the judicial custody. At that time, the respondent herein initiated proceedings under S.122(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. and summons was issued to the petitioner and he was produced under P.T warrant before the first respondent and the evidence was recorded. 3 witnesses were examined, out of which the complainant was examined as PW.1 but he stated that he has not given any complaint.
3. Subsequently, the Executive Magistrate and Deputy Commissioner of Police, Wannarapet, by his order dated 02.06.2021 has cancelled the bond executed under S.110 of Cr.P.C., and also imposed the sentence of the remaining bond period. Challenging the said order, the petitioner has filed the present revision.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though on the earlier occasion, an opportunity was given and subsequently, the Advocate was heard and examined. Though 3 witnesses were examined, the defacto complainant has not supported the case of the prosecution. He has stated that he has not given any complaint and so the first respondent without application of mind, simply cancelled the bond. Further, the evidence of PW.3, it is not clear whether the affidavit obtained from the Investigating Officer or Notary Public. Therefore, without considering the evidence of PW.1 and PW.3, the 1st respondent, passed the impugned order on non - application of mind, so it warrant interference.
5. Learned Government Advocate would submit that the first respondent after giving opportunity to the petitioner, passed impugned order and he was involved in several cases in Crime No.1748 of 2016 under S.147, S.148, S.341, S.294(b), S.324, S.307, S.506(ii) IPC r/w S.34 IPC, Crime No.1760 of 2016 under S.341, S.294(b), S.336, S.427, S.392, S.397, S.506(ii) IPC, Crime No.1088 of 2018 under S.294(b), S.506(ii) IPC, Crime No.1156 of 2018 under S.341, S.387, S.506(ii) IPC, Crime No.175 of 2019 under S.147, S.148, S.341, S.294(b), S.324, S.307 and S.506(ii) IPC and Crime No.5554 of 2020 under S.341, S.294(b), S.323, S.307, S.506(ii) IPC. He is a habitual offender. Therefore, the police obtained the bond executed under S.110 of Cr.P.C. Subsequently, he breached the condition of the bond and involved in another case. Therefore, the first respondent initiated proceedings under S.122(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. and an opportunity wa
