Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2379 (MAD)

Saravanan v. R. Balakrishnan

2014-08-05

P.R.SHIVAKUMAR

body2014
Judgment : 1. The arguments advanced by Mr.K.P.Narayanakumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, by Mr.S.R.A.Ramachandran, learned counsel for the first respondent/defacto complainant and by Mrs.S.Prabha, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) representing the police officials who figured as respondents 2 and 3 are heard. 2. At the first instance, a case was registered against the petitioners herein and two other unnamed persons in Crime No.253 of 2014 (erroneously noted in the copy of the First Information Report available in the case diary file produced for the perusal of this Court as FIR No.253 of 2013) for alleged offences punishable under Sections 468 read with 471, 420 and 506 (1) IPC. The said case came to be registered based on the complaint of the first respondent herein containing allegations that the petitioners who got the registration certificates of ten lorries owned by the first respondent and his family members in the guise of using them for transporting rice loads from Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation; that thereafter they forged the signatures of the first respondent and unauthorisedly used the lorries for transporting liquor to the TASMAC shops; that when the first respondent came to know that the lorries were used for the said purpose he gave a complaint to the TASMAC authorities and that pursuant to the said complaint the petitioners caused an intimidation on 05.03.2011 at 9.00 a.m by causing a threat that they would cut off of his lower limb if he did not withdraw the complaint given to the TASMAC authorities. Contending that the said complaint was lodged by the first respondent herein due to business rivalry, the petitioners did apply for anticipatory bail before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli in Crl.M.P.No.1601 of 2014. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, by order dated 02.04.2014, issued a direction for the release of the petitioners on anticipatory bail in respect of the said case subject to certain conditions. One of the conditions imposed was to the effect that the petitioners should not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person who was acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. One of the conditions imposed was to the effect that the petitioners should not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person who was acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. The said condition, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, was used as a ruse by the first respondent herein for foisting a case as if the petitioners, along with two other unnamed persons had caused restraint, verbal abuse, hurt and criminal intimidation with a view to coerce the first respondent herein to withdraw the earlier complaint and that thus the subsequent case in Crime No.298 of 2014 came to be registered on the file of the Tirunelveli Junction Police Station. The case diary filed in Crime No.298 of 2014 has also been produced by the police for the perusal of this Court. 3. Admittedly, the petitioners who were apprehended by the police in the above said second case were released on bail after incarceration for two days. After they were released on bail in the second case, the first respondent has approached the Principal Sessions Judge for cancellation of the bail granted in the first case, namely Crime No.253 of 2014, on the ground that the petitioners had violated one of the conditions on which they were released on bail in the said case. In the second case which was registered based on the alleged act which constituted the violation of a condition on which the petitioners were released on bail in the first case, the petitioners have been released on bail if at all there had been a violation of a condition on which they were released on bail in an earlier case, the same could have been very well projected as a valid objection for the grant of bail in the subsequent case. Either because no such objection was taken or because such an objection taken was rejected by the Court, the petitioners were released on bail in the second case registered on the file of the very same police station. Either because no such objection was taken or because such an objection taken was rejected by the Court, the petitioners were released on bail in the second case registered on the file of the very same police station. Even after they were thus released in the second case, the other two persons who allegedly joined with the petitioners in committing the offences for which the second case was registered are not yet been identified and in fact they have been referred to as persons whose names were not known to the informant. Under such circumstances, relying on the registration of the subsequent case as the proof of violation of a condition on which the petitioners were released on bail in the first case, shall not be proper and if the liberty of persons accused in criminal cases after the grant of bail is allowed to be interfered with on the mere allegation that they caused intimidation to the defacto complainant, the same shall not be conducive for the interest of justice. Stronger proof is needed for denying the benefit already conferred on the accused persons. In this case, excepting the bald allegations and the interested statements of the first respondent and his men made in the second case, there is no other material to show that the condition on which the petitioners were released on bail in the earlier case was violated. Hence, this Court comes to the conclusion that the learned Principal Sessions Judge committed an error in exercising his jurisdiction to cancel the bail granted in Cr.M.P.No.1601 of 2014, dated 02.04.2014. The said order is liable to be interfered with and set aside by this Court in exercise of its power of revision. 4. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the order of the Principal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli made in Cr.M.P.No.1914 of 2014, dated 12.06.2014 is set aside. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.