Judgment : 1. These petitions are filed for bail. 2. Crl.O.P.No.7226 of 2004 is for grant of bail in PRC.No.21 of 2002 (on the file of Sessions Court, Chengalpattu, as stated in the petition). It is further stated that the petitioners were produced under a P.T.Warrant for the offence under Secs.307 and 34, I.P.C., on 20.12.2001, and after production they are remanded continuously and that they are in custody for the past two years and two months. 3. The respondent has filed a counter in which it is stated that on 25.9.2001 at about 3.00 p.m., due to previous enmity, the first petitioner along with three persons entered the shop of the complainant and caused simple injuries to him; the second petitioner (who is A-1), caused injury with knife on the forehead and left ribs of the complainant. On 11.2.2002, the charge sheet has been filed. The accused persons are also involved in many cases, totalling 33; (the list of cases is also given in the counter). If they are released on bail, they will abscond and they will not appear before the trial Court and they will tamper with the prosecution witness. Hence, the bail petition is to be dismissed. 4. Crl.O.PNo.7227 of 2004 is for grant of bail in PRC.No.354 of 2002 (on the file of the Sessions Court, Chengalpattu, as stated in the petition). It is further stated that the petitioners were produced under a P.T. warrant for the offence under Secs.395 read with 397, I.P.C., on 20.12.2001, and they are remanded continuously thereafter; that they are in custody for the past two years and two months. 5. The respondent has filed a counter in which it is stated that on 19.12.2001/20.12.2001 at about 00.10 hours, the accused persons way-laided the complainant and his brother-in-law and attacked them with knife and aruval and forcibly took their bike and Rs.90,000. The accused are also involved in 30 cases; (the list of cases is also stated in the counter). If the petitioners are released on bail, they will abscond and they will not appear before the trial Court, and they will also tamper with the prosecution ‘witness. 6. A rejoinder has been filed by the petitioners in both the petitions stating that the petitioners are not aware that there are 31 cases pending against them. If the petitioners are released on bail, they will abscond and they will not appear before the trial Court, and they will also tamper with the prosecution ‘witness. 6. A rejoinder has been filed by the petitioners in both the petitions stating that the petitioners are not aware that there are 31 cases pending against them. The petitioners were arrested in Cr.No.786 of 2001, 658 of 2002, and 823 and 791 of 2004 on the file of Pallavaram Police Station; and Cr.No.527 of 2001 on the file of Chrompet Police Station, and these are the only cases in which they are being remanded. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners in Crl.O.P.Nos.7226 and 7227 of 2004 submitted that the petitioners were arrested on 20.12.2001; bail was granted on 11.10.2002. Since they were arrested in connection with some other offence, they could not appear in the Court; therefore, the Court issued P.T.Warrants and they were produced (under P.T.Warrants) on 25.10.2002. From that date onwards they are in custody. Hence, the present petitions for bail. 8. Crl.O.P.Nos.8936 and 9060 of 2004 are for grant of bail in PRC.Nos.5 and 4 of 2003 (on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvotriyur as stated in the petition). The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is charged for offences under Secs.341, 332, 336, 307, 427 and 506(ii), I.P.C. The petitioner was granted bail on 16.12.2002 under Sec. 167(2), Crl.P.C. on his furnishing sureties for Rs.2,000. While so, a P.T.Warrant was issued since he was detained under Act 14 of 1982. That detention was over on 4.10.2003. It is stated that the Magistrate issued a P.T.Warrant on 1.3.2004 and the petitioner has been remanded on the basis of P.T. Warrant on 1.3.2004. The petitioner states that he filed a bail petition before the Principal Sessions Judge and that was dismissed. Therefore, the present petitions have been filed. 9. Crl.O.P.No.8951 of 2004 is for grant of bail in PRC.No.5 of 2003 (on the file of the Judicial Magistrate II, Pooneri, Thiruvallur district, as stated in the petition). The petitioner was originally arrested and he was released on bail and he was appearing before the Court till 17.9.2003. While on bail, he involved in another offence punishable under Sec.506(ii), I.P.C. Since he was arrested in connection with that case, he could not appear on 30.9.2003. The petitioner was originally arrested and he was released on bail and he was appearing before the Court till 17.9.2003. While on bail, he involved in another offence punishable under Sec.506(ii), I.P.C. Since he was arrested in connection with that case, he could not appear on 30.9.2003. Hence, the Magistrate issued a non-bailable warrant and remanded him to custody. The bail application filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 27.2.2004. Hence, this petition. 10. Crl.O.P.No.8987 of 2004 is for grant of bail in PRC.No.50 of 2002 (on the file for the Judicial Magistrate-II, Kancheepuram, as stated in the petition). The petitioner was arrested on Crime No.338 of 2001 on the file of the respondent for an offence under Sec.302, I.P.C. The petitioner was appearing before the Judicial Magistrate II, Kancheepuram in PRC.No.50 of 2002. While so, he was arrested on 14.2.2004 in Crime No.87 of 2004 for the offence under Sec.4(1)(aaa) and 4 (1-A)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act read with Rules 6 and 11 of the Rectified Spirit Rules 1959. Due to that, he could not appear before the Magistrate on 18.2.2004. He filed a petition under Sec.317, Crl.P.C. to dispense with his appearance. But, the Magistrate dismissed the petition and a P.T.Warrant was issued and it was executed on 24.2.2004. The petitioner was enlarged on bail in the prohibition offences on 25.2.2004. However, in view of the P.T.Warrant, he is still in prison. The bail petition in Crl.M.P.No.3202 of 2004 filed before the Sessions Court, Kancheepuram was dismissed on 5.3.2004. Hence, the present petition. 11. The point arises for consideration in these petitions is that when a person (who was granted bail by the competent Court and released after furnishing sureties, but was subsequently arrested and remanded in connection with another offence) is produced before the Court in the first case under a P.T.Warrant, whether that Court can remand him again in the first case till the next hearing date. 12. In view of the importance of the question involved, the Court requested the learned Public Prosecutor to clarify the position of law and he appeared and submitted his arguments. 13. 12. In view of the importance of the question involved, the Court requested the learned Public Prosecutor to clarify the position of law and he appeared and submitted his arguments. 13. Mr.I.Subramanian, learned Public Prosecutor, submitted that a person commits an offence and he is arrested and remanded to judicial custody; he obtains bail and produces sureties and is let on bail; the very same accused commits another offence and for that offence he is arrested and remanded to judicial custody; therefore, the accused was unable to attend the Court, in the case in he was granted bail; under the circumstances a P.T.Warrant, as contemplated under Sec.267, Crl.P.C, is issued and the accused is so produced; subsequently, if he is granted bail and released on producing sureties in the second case as well, the Court of first instance before which he was produced under a P.T.Warrant cannot remand him till the next hearing date before it. He further submitted that the bail granted by the Court pursuant to which sureties were produced and bonds were executed, can be cancelled only in the manner known to law. Such a cancellation is provided under Secs.437(5) and 439(2), Crl.P.C. The circumstances under which a bail can be cancelled has been set out in Sanjay Gandhis caseand subsequent pronouncements by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the order passed under Sec.272, Crl.P.C. pursuant to which a P.T. Warrant is issued can, by no stretch of imagination, supersede an order of bail granted to the accused. That is not the intent and purpose of a P.T.Warrant, which is purely a temporary order (directing the production of an accused to answer a charge or to give evidence, etc. as contemplated under Sec.267, Crl.P.C). Therefore, merely because the accused is remanded to custody, when produced under a P.T.Warrant, that he should again seek bail in the Court of first instance, is against the provisions of law. 14. The learned Public Prosecutor wanted certain remedial measures be taken and suggested the following remedies: (1) A general direction may be issued to Magistrates in such cases to issue a P.T. Warrant by the Court of first instance only if the case is posted for trial. (2) Under no circumstances, a remand order issued pursuant to a P.T.Warrant, be treated on par with a regular order of remand under Sec. 167, Crl.P.C. or 309, Crl.P.C. as the case may be. (2) Under no circumstances, a remand order issued pursuant to a P.T.Warrant, be treated on par with a regular order of remand under Sec. 167, Crl.P.C. or 309, Crl.P.C. as the case may be. (3) The decision in Anupam Kulkarnis case, A.I.R. 1992 S.C. 1768 has relevance only when during the course of investigation, the accused, who is already in judicial custody, is found to have been involved in an earlier case, under such circumstances a formal arrest can be made by the officer concerned for the purpose of investigation of the case, so that, police custody could be taken within the first 15 days as contemplated under Sec. 167, Crl.P.C. 15. The learned Public Prosecutor also pointed out that in Kattan alias Subramani v. State, represented by Inspector of Police, Avadi Police Station (1992)1 M. W.N. (Crl.) 3 (Mad.), Pratap Singh, J, has directed that the P.T.Warrant be recalled. In Shanmughiah Pandian v. State by Sub-Inspector of Police, Ramanathapuratn Bazar Police Station, Ramanathapuratn (1999)1 M.W.N.(Crl.) 21, B.Akbar Basha Khadiri, J., has granted bail in a case where application for recalling warrant was filed., 16. In common parlance a warrant issued under Sec.267, Crl.P.C. is called as “P.T. Warrant”. The format is proved in the Second Schedule of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as follows: FORM N0.36 ORDER REQUIRING PRODUCTION IN COURT OF PERSON IN PRISON FOR ANSWERING TO CHARGE OF OFFENCE. (See Section 267) To The Officer in charge of the jail at…….. WHEREAS the attendance of name of prisoner) at present confined/detained in the above mentioned prison, is required in this Court to answer to a charge of (state shortly the offence charged) or for the purposes of a proceeding (State shortly the particulars of the proceeding); You are hereby required to produce the said………….under safe and sure conduct before this Court on the…..day of ….19, by……A.M. there to answer to the said charge, or for the purpose of the said proceeding, and after this Court has dispensed with his further attendance, cause him to be conveyed under safe and sure conduct back to the said prison. And you are further required to inform the said of the contents of this order and deliver to him the attached copy thereof. Dated, this…….day of……19 (Seal of the Court) (Signature) Countersigned. (Signature) (Seal). And you are further required to inform the said of the contents of this order and deliver to him the attached copy thereof. Dated, this…….day of……19 (Seal of the Court) (Signature) Countersigned. (Signature) (Seal). As per Sec.267, Crl.P.C. - Whenever, in the course of an enquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, it appears to a Criminal Court, that a person detained in a prison should be brought before the Court “for answering to a charge of an offence”, or “for the purpose of any proceedings against him”, or “to examine such a person as a witness”, the Court may make an order requiring the officer in charge of the prison to produce such person before the Court. 17. For the above purpose, exercising the power conferred under Sec.267, Crl.P.C, the P.T. Warrant is issued. Reading Sec.267, Crl.P.C. with Form 36, it is clear that a person shall be produced before a Court when a P.T.Warrant is issued and that he must be conveyed back to the prison. It appears that, the words “after this Court has dispensed with his further attendance”, found in Form 36, are taken by the Court below as if it confers the power on the Court to remand such person for a further period. These words must be read along with the provisions of Sec.267, Crl.P.C. When so read, it could be seen that the purpose of issuing such warrant is to produce the person before the Court “for answering to a charge” or “for any proceedings” or “for giving evidence”. When a person has already been granted bail by a competent Court, that can be cancelled only as provided under Sec.437(5) or 439(2), Crl.P.C. Unless and until the bail is so cancelled, the person produced under a P.T.Warrant, cannot be “remanded”. 18. That is, if a person is granted bail by a competent Court he has to execute a bail bond as directed; and then he is released from the prison. Such a person when produced under a P.T.Warrant, (in some proceedings in a case in which he was already granted bail) cannot be “remanded”. Such person can only be “conveyed” back to the prison. It is for the prison authority to see whether he was remanded in any other case. If he is not validly remanded in any other case, the prison authorities cannot continue to keep that person in custody. Such person can only be “conveyed” back to the prison. It is for the prison authority to see whether he was remanded in any other case. If he is not validly remanded in any other case, the prison authorities cannot continue to keep that person in custody. Under those circumstances, when the person is granted bail in the second case in which he was remanded, then, in view of the fact that he was already granted bail for the earlier offence, there would be no valid remand to continue to keep him in jail. 19. The Code of Criminal Procedure does not contemplate “remanding” a person produced under P.T.Warrant. The person produced under P.T.Warrant is only to be “conveyed” to the prison. If the bail granted to such person is not cancelled, there is no necessity to grant bail again. Bail cannot be granted for a second time, merely because he was produced under P.T.Warrant and the Court remanded him again. Issuance of P.T.Warrant is not tantamount to cancellation of the bail. 20. If a person released on bail does not appear before the Court and a non-bailable warrant was issued by the Court against that person, as and when he is arrested and produced before the Court, the Court which issued non-bailable warrant has to pass an order specifically whether the bail bond executed by him was forfeited. If the Court passes an order forfeiting the bonds executed by the sureties as well as by the accused, it can seek for fresh sureties. Unless and until the bail is cancelled by the same Court or by a superior Court as per Sec.437(5) or 439(2), Crl.P.C. or the bail bonds were cancelled for valid reasons, a person already granted bail but produced under a P.T.Warrant (under Sec.267, Crl.P.C.) cannot be “remanded” by the Court before which he was so produced. Such a person shall only be “conveyed” to prison. 21. A P.T.Warrant is issued as a temporary measure for the production of a person confined in prison before the Court. Such person shall be sent back to prison at the end of the day unless the Court sets him at liberty. A person produced under P.T.Warrant cannot be “remanded” in a case he was granted bail by a competent Court, to be produced on a subsequent date when neither the bail nor the bail bonds were cancelled. 22. Such person shall be sent back to prison at the end of the day unless the Court sets him at liberty. A person produced under P.T.Warrant cannot be “remanded” in a case he was granted bail by a competent Court, to be produced on a subsequent date when neither the bail nor the bail bonds were cancelled. 22. In view of the importance of the matter, the following directions are issued to Magistrates and Sessions Judges: (i) The Courts shall not issue P.T.Warrant unless it is absolutely necessary that such person shall be present on a day for any proceedings before the Court, such as for framing of the charges, or when the trial is on and the witnesses are being examined, and his presence is necessary, or for questioning the accused under Sec.313, Crl.P.C, or if such person is to be examined as witness in any case. (ii) After the days proceedings are over, that person shall be sent back or “conveyed” to prison. (iii) In case the presence of that person is necessary on any other day a fresh P.T.Warrant shall be issued. 23. In so far as these cases are concerned, the jail authorities are directed to release the petitioners forthwith, if they are not remanded in any other case.