Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 104 (MAD)

Suresh Kumar v. State by Inspector of Police

2017-01-06

P.DEVADASS

body2017
JUDGMENT : (Petition filed under section 439 of CRPC praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court will be pleased to enlarge the Petitioners on bail in CR.No.4738/16 on the file the respondent.) 1. This is a bail petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. 2. Pallikaranai Police registered a case in Crime No.4738 of 2016 under Section 143, 294(b), 188, 285, 332 IPC r/w Section 3 of TNP (PDL) Act in connection with an occurrence taken place on 31.12.2016. 3. In this connection, Police arrested A1 to A14. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Alandur remanded them to judicial custody. In Crl.M.P. No.20 of 2017 they have sought for bail before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chengalpet. On 04.01.2017, the bail petition came before the learned Sessions Judge for hearing. Since the learned Public Prosecutor sought for time, it was adjourned to 9.1.2017. In between there are two working days (05.01.2017 and 06.01.2017) and two holidays (07.01.2017 and 08.01.2017). 4. At this juncture, the petitioners have filed this bail petition before this Court. 5. Mr.N.G.R.Prasad for M/s.Row and Reddy, learned counsel for petitioners submits that the learned Sessions Judge has mechanically adjourned the bail petition to an un-reasonably longer time. He could have given a reasonable time to the other side. Long time has been given to the prosecution and in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not necessary. In this connection, the learned counsel also cited Sundeep Kumar Bafna v. State of Maharashtra and another ( AIR 2014 SC 1745 ). 6. The learned Government Advocate does not have necessary particulars. He is in a predicament. 7. I have anxiously considered the submissions and perused the typed set and the decision cited. 8. Bail jurisdiction is a benevolent jurisdiction. It is an extension of human rights jurisdiction. Bail is opposed to jail. Bail is intended to secure personal liberty. It is subject to the constitutional mandate in Article 21 of Constitution of India. It is regulated by a 'fair', 'reasonable' and a 'just' procedure [see Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India ( AIR 1978 SC 597 )]. 9. Bail jurisdiction is built in Sections 436, 437 and 439 Cr.P.C. Section 438 Cr.P.C. deals with Anticipatory Bail. Section 436 Cr.P.C. is for bailable offences where bail is the rule and jail is the exception. It is regulated by a 'fair', 'reasonable' and a 'just' procedure [see Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India ( AIR 1978 SC 597 )]. 9. Bail jurisdiction is built in Sections 436, 437 and 439 Cr.P.C. Section 438 Cr.P.C. deals with Anticipatory Bail. Section 436 Cr.P.C. is for bailable offences where bail is the rule and jail is the exception. Under Section 437 Cr.P.C., Magistrate has got the power to deal bail petitions in Non-bailable offences. Section 439 Cr.P.C. gives similar power to Sessions Court and High Court. Both the Courts exercise concurrent jurisdiction. But comity of Courts, hierarchy of Courts are there. 10. Parties should approach the hierarchy of Courts. But under certain exceptional circumstances, it can be deviated. When once jurisdiction of a Court under concurrent jurisdiction is invoked, then at the same time, jurisdiction of other Court having concurrent jurisdiction cannot be invoked. But there are exceptions. Say for instance, the situation is such that the Lawyers cannot approach the Court. The doors of the Courts are closed for reasons beyond its control or the situation is such that the accused or their lawyers cannot go to the Court or the Subordinate Courts are closed, the accused can by-pass the Magistrate Court or Sessions Court and knock the doors of this Court for justice. It is a matter of 'access to justice'. 11. Now in this case, the petitioners have invoked the bail jurisdiction of the learned Sessions Judge, Chengalpet under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. and the learned Sessions Judge has taken cognizance of their bail petition and it is pending before the learned Judge. Now High Court neither meddle with nor usurp or assume the judicial functions of the said Court. In such circumstances, this Court cannot intervene in the bail petition pending before the said Court. 12. However, from the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the events happened before the said Sessions Court shows that the way in which the bail petition has been handled by the Subordinate Courts is not appreciable. When especially liberty of the individuals are involved, they should be disposed of in a fair manner. The prosecution is entitled to an opportunity. But it should be a 'reasonable opportunity'. It also depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. There is no cut and dried formula. But our (judicial) conscience is the guiding factor. 13. When especially liberty of the individuals are involved, they should be disposed of in a fair manner. The prosecution is entitled to an opportunity. But it should be a 'reasonable opportunity'. It also depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. There is no cut and dried formula. But our (judicial) conscience is the guiding factor. 13. In this case, nature of the allegations stated by the petitioners and considering the penal sections involved, on 04.01.2017, if the learned Sessions Judge could not dispose it of for want of necessary particulars to be furnished by the prosecution or if the prosecution sought for time, the learned Judge could have adjourned it to the next working day. It would be reasonable and acceptable. Straightaway adjourning the bail petition to 09.01.2017, is very difficult to digest. This is not a tough case which requires consideration of volumeness case-records. It is also a general criminal case involving certain first class offences. It does not require any mind bogging exercise. 14. Liberty of the individuals can be curbed or taken away only by a procedure established by law. But the procedure must be 'fair', 'reasonable' and 'not unjust'. The procedure by which the Subordinate Courts deal with the bail petitions must also be 'fair', 'reasonable' and 'just'. The Subordinate Courts are bound to adopt a fair procedure in disposing of the bail petitions by giving reasonable opportunity to both sides, but not a long rope to either. 15. In as much as the bail petition filed by the petitioners is pending before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chengalpet, this bail petition cannot be entertained here. 16. With the observations in this order, this petition is disposed of.