Advocates:
['M/s Ajmal Associates', '', 'SulthanBasha J', 'Mohamed Aslam M U', '', 'Public Prosecutor', '', 'M/s Micheal Sebastin B', 'Vak filed', 'Ph']

CRL.R.C.(MD).No.409 of 2022

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

RESERVED ON : 25.07.2022

PRONOUNCED ON: 11.08.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR

CRL.R.C.(MD).No.409 of 2022

Spurgeon Samuel

: Petitioner/Respondent/Accused

Vs.

1.The Inspector of Police,

Asaripallam Police Station,

Nagercoil,

Kanyakumari District.

(Crime No.219 of 2021)

: 1^st Respondent/Respondent/Complainant

2.R.A.Jaikumar

: 2^nd Respondent/Petitioner/ Defacto

complainant

PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401

of Cr.P.C, to call for the records relating to the order dated 26.02.2022 passed in

Crl.M.P.No.531 of 2022 in Crime No.219 of 2021, on the file of the Judicial

Magistrate Court No.I, Nagercoil and set aside the same.

1/29

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

CRL.R.C.(MD).No.409 of 2022

For Petitioner

: Mr.Ajmal Khan

Senior Counsel

for M/s Ajmal Associates

For Respondents : Mr.S.Manikandan

Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

for R.1

: Mr.B.Michael Sebastin

for R.2

ORDER

The Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order passed in

Crl.M.P.No.531 of 2022, dated 26.02.2022, on the file of the Court of Judicial

Magistrate No.I, Nagercoil, cancelling the statutory bail granted to the revision

petitioner, in Cr.M.P.No.147 of 2022, dated 25.01.2022, in connection with the

case registered in Cr.No.219 of 2021 of Aasaripallam Police Station,

Kanyakumari District.

2. The revision petitioner is the accused in Cr.No.219 of 2021, on the file

of the first respondent police for the offences under Sections 326, 307, 323, 364,

452, 294(b) and 506(ii) I.P.C. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the

second respondent/defacto complainant, the above said F.I.R, came to be

registered. The petitioner has filed a petition in Cr.M.P.No.147 of 2022 under

Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., seeking statutory bail, as charge sheet was not filed till

2/29

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

CRL.R.C.(MD).No.409 of 2022

the expiry of 90 days since the date of arrest and the learned Judicial Magistrate,

vide order dated 25.01.2022, has granted statutory bail directing the petitioner to

furnish two sureties for a likesum of Rs.5,000/-. Subsequently, the second

respondent/defacto complainant has filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.531 of 2022

under Section 437(5) Cr.P.C., seeking orders to cancel the bail granted to the

revision petitioner in Cr.M.P.No.147 of 2022, dated 25.01.2022. The learned

Magistrate, after hearing the learned Counsel for the defacto complainant and the

learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent police, has passed the

impugned order dated 26.02.2022 allowing the petition and thereby cancelling

the bail granted to the revision petitioner. Aggrieved by the cancellation of the

bail, the accused has come forward with the present revision.

3. The learned Counsel for the second respondent/defacto complainant has

raised a preliminary objection questioning the very maintainability of the

revision, as the impugned order is only an interlocutory order and relied on a

decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Abdul Nasser Madani Vs.

State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2000 Crl.L.J.1258, wherein another judgment

of this Court in Chitra Sankaranarayanan Vs. State reported in (1995)1 MLJ

(Crl.) 216 was referred and wherein it is observed as follows:

“When the order of bail granted by the Judicial First Class

Magistrate has been cancelled by the Sessions Judge, certainly, the

accused party is entitled to move again before the Sessions Judge,

3/29

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

CRL.R.C.(MD).No.409 of 2022

who cancelled the bail, to grant the "bail under Section 439(1) of

the Code. Therefore, the order of cancellation of the bail will not be

a final order as any number of bail applications can be filed and in

view of this reason, the order passed by the Sessions Judge is