Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 3585 (MAD)

P. Kala v. State Rep. By the Inspector of Police

2013-10-04

P.DEVADASS

body2013
Judgment : Actually this petition is for a direction to work out a pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur in Crl.M.P.No.1208 of 2013 on 04.09.2013. 2. Petitioner is alleged to have committed offences under Sections 409 I.P.C and Section 4 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978. 3. He sought for pre-arrest bail in Crl.M.P.No.1208 of 2013. On 04.9.2013, learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur granted him advance bail and directed him to surrender before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tiruppur within 15 days from the date of the order, in default the bail order automatically stand cancelled. 4. Petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.1318 of 2013 stating reasons as to why he could not surrender within 15 days and sought for extension of time. 5. The learned Sessions Judge was of the view that already anticipatory bail granted stood cancelled thus dismissed the petition on 23.9.2013. 6. In the circumstances, the petitioner is before this Court. 7. Whether bail or anticipatory bail they are concerned with liberty of the individuals. It is basic that ground for granting bail and cancellation of bail are entirely different. A pre-arrest bail once granted can be cancelled and in a manner known to law. Before cancelling it, opportunity shall be given to the person. Thus, there cannot be automatic cancellation of bail or anticipatory bail as the case may be. 8. When anticipatory bails are granted, it is usual to prescribe time limit within which the petitioner shall surrender and execute the bond. It other words, time limit to work out the bail order. But, when the date expires bail order will not, should not expire. Unless it is cancelled in a manner known to law after giving opportunity to the petitioner, it will be in force. There may be cases for certain reason beyond the control of the accused, he could not surrender. It may be due to the bottlenecks created by the police, complainant side or poverty or sickness or failure of fault on the part of the petitioner's lawyer or communication gap or some natural calamity or calamity in the house of the petitioner. In the circumstances, if sufficient reason is given, the Court can extend the time to surrender and execute the bail bond. 9. There cannot be self imposed limitation by the Court. In the circumstances, if sufficient reason is given, the Court can extend the time to surrender and execute the bail bond. 9. There cannot be self imposed limitation by the Court. Especially in a bail order, anticipatory bail order which are concerned with the liberty of the individuals. 10. Thus, the pre-arrest bail order passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur in Crl.M.P.No.1208 of 2013 even now holds good is in force as it has not been cancelled in a manner known to law. Thus the bail cancellation order dated 23.9.2013 is not in accordance with law. 11. But the present bail order dated 07.9.2013 could not be worked out because time limit fixed is over. That bail order could be activated by extending the time to surrender. It would be the proper way, particularly, in the light of Article 21, Constitution of India which guarantees liberty and personal freedom of the individuals. Instead of doing it, the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur indulged in hair-splitting exercise and gave too much importance to technicalities and deprived himself of his own power to extend the time. When there is clash between technicalities and justice, justice must prevail. Indian Courts are not Court of law alone, they are Courts of justice also. For the sake of technicality, justice cannot be thrown away as courts are for doing/delivering justice – to do justice and also to undo injustice. 12. In the circumstances, this Court is of the firm view that there cannot be self imposed limitation to anticipatory bail orders. 13. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur could have liberally considered the time extension petition in Crl.M.P.No.1318 of 2013. If he finds that purposely the bail bond was not executed, which is very rare, he could have refused the extension of time, that too after hearing the party. Now, this Court will give live current to the pre-arrest bail order dated 04.09.2013 by extending time to surrender and execute the bonds. 14. In the circumstances, the order of the Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur passed in Crl.M.P.No.1318 of 2013 dated 23.09.2013 is set aside. Now, this Court will give live current to the pre-arrest bail order dated 04.09.2013 by extending time to surrender and execute the bonds. 14. In the circumstances, the order of the Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur passed in Crl.M.P.No.1318 of 2013 dated 23.09.2013 is set aside. Within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the petitioner shall surrender before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tiruppur and comply the terms and conditions of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur prescribed in his pre-arrest bail order passed in Crl.M.P.No.1208 of 2013 dated 04.09.2013. 15. With this direction, the criminal original petition is disposed of.