Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 2393 (MAD)

H. Ratnakumar v. Gopinath

2015-07-07

R.SUBBIAH

body2015
ORDER Criminal Original Petition No.10018 of 2013 has been filed by the petitioner to cancel the bail granted to the first respondent / first accused by the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.1332 of 2013 by order dated 5.4.2013 and commit him to judicial custody. 2. Criminal Original Petition No.10060 of 2013 has been filed by the petitioner to cancel the bail granted to the respondents 1 and 2 / A.2 and A.3 by the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.1176 of 2013 by order dated 19.3.2013 and commit them to judicial custody. 3. The petitioner in both the petitions is the de facto complainant, the first respondent in Crl.O.P.No.10018 of 2013 is A.1 and the respondents 1 and 2 in Crl.O.P.No.10060 of 2013 are A.2 and A.3 in Crime No.42 of 2013 for the offence under Sections 406, 420 and 506(i) I.P.C. on the file of the respondent police. 4. It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner herein and one Hassan Abdul Kadar are the Director and Managing Director of CCS Infotech Limited. The nature of business of their company is sales and service of Computers, Laptops, computer spares and peripherals. A.1 was running a proprietorship concern in the name and style of M/s.Modern Computers. Subsequently, the said firm was converted into a private limited company in the name and style of M/s.Modern Complete IT Store Private Limited along with A.2. A.1 and A.2 approached the petitioner through A.3 on behalf of the company for supply of Laptops, Desktops and Peripherals on credit basis and assured that they would pay the amount on later date. Believing the words, the petitioner company had supplied materials to the value of Rs.6,61,31,642/-. Towards part discharge of the outstanding amount, cheques signed by A.1 for a sum of Rs.5,36,46,267/- were issued and the same were dishonoured. When the petitioner demanded to settle the liability for the above purchase, A.1 to A.3 had threatened him and also cheated his company. Hence, the petitioner lodged a complaint and the same was registered in Crime No.42 of 2013 on the file of the respondent police. Thereafter, A.1 to A.3 were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 25.2.2013. When the petitioner demanded to settle the liability for the above purchase, A.1 to A.3 had threatened him and also cheated his company. Hence, the petitioner lodged a complaint and the same was registered in Crime No.42 of 2013 on the file of the respondent police. Thereafter, A.1 to A.3 were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 25.2.2013. Later, A.1 and A.2 and A.3 filed bail petitions in Crl.P.Nos.1332 and 1176 of 2013 respectively before the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai and the learned Magistrate granted bail by order dated 5.4.2013 and 19.3.2013 respectively. Now, the present petitions have been filed by the petitioner for cancellation of the bail granted by the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai to A.1 to A.3. 5. The main submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that A.1 was already convicted by the Court in Abudhabi, UAE in Penal Case No.5844 of 2003 on 20.12.2003 for commission of forgery of official documents, squandering and stealing the cash belonging to the company and caused damage to the victim. He was imposed a sentence of a period of six years and a fine of 10200 Dirhams (approximately Rs.1,53,000/-in INR). Further, A.1 is holding two passports in the name of Kannan Gopinath and Krishnamurthy Gopinath bearing Nos.P164631 and A1188637. Based on the conviction by the Abudhabi Court, Look Out Circular was issued through Interpol to all the international Airports. Regional Passport Authorities were also intimated about the criminal prosecution as against A.1 for holding fake passports. Further, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Court below has extended the leniency to grant bail to A.2 and A.3 even though no valid document was produced by them and the reasons assigned by the Court below for granting bail to them are not sound. All these aspects were not considered by the Court below while granting bail. Further, he has submitted that since A.1 is holding two passports, there is every possibility of A.1 fleeing away from the country. Thus, he sought to cancel the bail already granted to A.1 to A.3. 6. But, I find that the grounds raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner are in no way relevant to consider the present petitions for cancellation of bail. Thus, he sought to cancel the bail already granted to A.1 to A.3. 6. But, I find that the grounds raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner are in no way relevant to consider the present petitions for cancellation of bail. So far as the bail orders granted to A.1 to A.3 are concerned, the learned Magistrate by applying his mind to the allegations found in the FIR and also taking note of the fact that A.1 to A.3 were in prison for more than 40 days, has granted bail and A.1 to A.3 are also regularly complying with the conditions imposed by the learned Magistrate. Further, in my considered opinion, the said submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner will not serve as a ground for cancellation of bail granted to Á.1 to A.3. Once bail is granted by the Court below, it could be cancelled only if A.1 to A.3 abuse the said concession. In this regard, a reference could be placed in the judgment reported in (1995) 1 Supreme Court Cases 349 - Dolat Ram and others v. State of Haryana, wherein it has been held as follows:- " Rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail already granted, have to be considered and dealt with on different basis. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of bail already granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) are: interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner. The satisfaction of the court, on the basis of material placed on the record of the possibility of the accused absconding is yet another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. However, bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial." 7. However, bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial." 7. In the decision reported in (2009) 10 Supreme Court Cases 652 - Hazari Lal Das v. State of West Bengal and another, the Hon'ble Supreme Court by relying upon the above said decision in the case of Dolat Ram and others v. State of Haryana reported in (1995) 1 Supreme Court Cases 349, has held as follows:- " 7. There is nothing on record that there has been interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice by the appellant. It also does not appear from the record that the concession granted to him has been abused in any manner. No supervening circumstances have surfaced nor shown justifying cancellation of anticipatory bail. The judicial discretion exercised by the Sessions Judge in granting the anticipatory bail has been interfered with by the High Court in the absence of cogent and convincing circumstances. We are, thus, satisfied that the impugned order cannot be sustained." 8. The dictum laid down in the above cases would clearly show that once bail is granted, the same cannot be cancelled in a mechanical manner. Only if there is any abuse of concession granted to the accused, then only the Court can cancel the bail. In the instant case, even according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, it is not the case of the petitioner that A.1 to A.3 are abusing the concession granted to them. On the other hand, in so far as A.1 is concerned, it is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that A.1 was already convicted by the Court in Abudhabi, UAE in Penal Case No.5844 of 2003 on 20.12.2003 for commission of forgery of official documents, squandering and stealing the cash belonging to the company and further he is holding two passports, which would show that there is every possibility of A.1 fleeing away from the country. In so far as A.2 and A.3 are concerned, it is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the Court below has extended the leniency to grant bail to A.2 and A.3 even though no valid document was produced by them and the reasons assigned by the Court below are not sound. However, the said submissions will not serve as a ground for cancellation of bail granted to A.1 to A.3. 9. For all the reasons stated above, I am of the opinion, the petitioner has not made out any case to cancel the bail granted to the first respondent / first accused (Crl.O.P.No.10018 of 2013) by the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai in Crl.M.P. No.1332 of 2013 and the bail granted to the respondents 1 and 2 / A.2 and A.3 (Crl.O.P.No.10080 of 2013) by the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai in Crl.M.P. No.1176 of 2013 by order dated 19.3.2013. 10. In fine, both the criminal original petitions are dismissed.