Madras High Court
R.Aravindan vs State Rep By on 19 March, 2015
Author: S.Manikumar
Bench: S.Manikumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 19.03.2015 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR Crl.R.C.No.231 of 2015 R.Aravindan .. Petitioner Vs. State Rep by The Inspector of Police, Tiruvarur Town Police Station, Tiruvarur District. .. Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, against the order of cancellation made in Crl.M.P.No.179 of 2014 on 09.03.2015 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvarur and to set aside the same. For Petitioner : Ms.E.Thamizhannai For Respondent : Mr.P.Govindarajan, Additional Public Prosecutor O R D E R
Being aggrieved by the order passed in Cr.M.P.No.179 of 2015 dated 09.03.2015 by the learned Principal District Judge, Thiruvarur, cancelling the bail granted to the petitioner in Cr.M.P.No.1515 of 2014 dated 23.12.2014, this revision case is filed.
2. The petitioner was arrested by the Inspector of Police, Tiruvarur in Crime No.590 of 2014 under Sections 147, 148, 352, 307 IPC r/w 25(1) (A) of the Indian Arms Act, 1959 and he was remanded to judicial custody. By order dated 23.12.2014, in Cr.M.p.No.1515 of 2014, he was enlarged on bail with a condition to stay at Coimbatore and sign before the B4, Race Course Police Station, Coimbatore, daily twice in the morning at 10.00 a.m. and in the evening at 5.00 p.m., until further orders. Contending that the petitioner did not comply with the condition, and jumped over bail, and after obtaining a letter dated 26.01.2015 from B4, Race Course Police Station, Coimbatore, the Inspector of Police, Thiruvarur Police Station has filed Cr.M.P.No.179 of 2015 under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C., for cancelling the bail granted to the petitioner in Cr.M.P.No.1515 of 2014 dated 23.12.2014.
3. Perusal of the impugned order shows that a counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents 1, 4, 6 and 7, opposing the prayer for cancellation of bail.
4. On instructions, Mr.Govindarajan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.1 in Crime No.590 of 2014. He has also filed a counter in the revision petition.
5. When the prayer for cancellation of bail was objected, upon considering the materials on record, the learned Principal District Judge, Tiruvarur has passed the following orders:
The respondent is the accused in Tiruvarur Town Police Station Crime No.590 of 2014 and he was enlarged on bail on 23.12.2014 as per the order in Cr.M.P.No.1515 of 2014. The respondent/accused was released on bail with condition to sign before the B4, Race Course Police Station, Coimbatore daily twice in the morning at 10.00 a.m and in the evening at 5.00 p.m until further orders. The police has filed a report that the accused so far has not singed before the B4, Race Course Police Station, Coimbatore. The respondent/accused had stated in the counter that he had signed before B4, Race Course Police Station, Coimbatore. The respondent/accused has not obeyed the condition. After filing the present Cr.M.P.179/2015 notice was issued to the accused and filed counter. Since the accused had not obeyed the condition, I am fully justified in cancelling the bail granted to him in Cr.M.P.1515 of 2014, dated 23.12.2014 by this Court. The respondent/accused is directed to surrender before the Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvarur on or before 14.03.2015 till then the police should not arrest him.
6. Though Ms.Thamizhannai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assailed the correctness of the order, on the grounds inter alia that the petitioner was not an accused in the case, this Court is not inclined to accept her contention for the reason that in Crime No.590 of 2014, on the file of Thiruvarur Police Station, the petitioner has been arrayed as accused No.1 and that he has been released on bail, subject to the condition that, he must stay at coimbatore and sign before the Inspector of Police, B4, Race Course Police Station, Coimbatore daily twice, in the morning at 10.00 a.m., and in the evening at 5.00 p.m., until further orders. The petitioner has not complied with the conditions.
7. On 18.03.2015, when the matter came up for hearing, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor was directed to get the particulars, based on which, the Inspector of Police, Thiruvarur Police Station has filed an affidavit in the lower Court for cancelling the bail granted to the petitioner in Cr.M.P.No.1515 of 2014 dated 23.12.2014. Responding to the same, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has furnished the letters dated 25.01.2015 and 26.01.2015, which are reproduced hereunder:
mDg;g[eh; bgWeh; fhty; Ma;thsh;. fhty; Ma;thsh;. efu fhty; epiyak;. gp4. nu!; nfhh;!; fhty; epiyak;. jpUthU:h;/ nfhit khefuk;/ e/f/vz; -gp1/ fh/ep-2015 ehs; 25/01/15 bghUs;: fhty; ?Kd; $hkpd; ?Kd; $hkpd; bgw;wth; j';fsJ fhty; epiyaj;jpy; jpdKk; ifbaGj;jpLfpd;wduh vd mwpf;if nfhuy;?bjhlh;ghf ghh;it:1 jpUthU:h; efu fhty; epiya F/vz; 590-14 r-gp 147. 148. 352. 307 ,jr r/w 25(1) (A) Indian Arms Act, 1959 ghh;it:2 Cr.M.P.No.1515/2014 dt: 23.12.14 ////////////////////////////
,jd; ghh;itapy; 1y; rk;ke;jg;gl;l vjphp mutpe;jd; vd;gth; jpUthU:h; khtl;l mkh;t[ ePjpkd;wj;jpy; ,jd; ghh;itapy; (2) y; fz;l cj;jutpd;go jpdKk; fhiy. Khiy ,UntisapYk; j';fsJ fhty; epiyaj;jpy; ifbaGj;jpl;L tUfpd;whuh vd;w jfty; nkw;go vjphpapd; Kd;$hkpd; epge;jid jsh;t[ kWg;gpw;F gjpyspf;f njitg;gLtjhy; nkw;go egh; j';fsJ fhty; epiyaj;jpy; M$uhfp ifbaGj;jpLfpd;whuh vd;w jftiy mwpf;ifahf bfhLf;Fk;go nfl;Lf;bfhs;fpnwd;/ fhty; Ma;thsh;.
efu fhty; epiyak;.
jpUthU:h;/ 25/01/2015 mDg;g[eh; bgWeh; fhty; Ma;thsh;. fhty; Ma;thsh;. gp4. ge;ja rhiy fhty; epiyak;. efu fhty; epiyak;. nfhit khefh;/ jpUthU:h; khefuk;/ bghUs;: fhty;? Kd; $hkpd; ? Kd; $hkpd; bgw;wth;fs; ifbaGj;jpLtJ rk;ke;jkhf mwpf;if rkh;g;gpj;jy; bjhlh;ghf/ ghh;it:1 jpUthU:h; efu fhty; epiya F/vz; 590-14 r- gp 147. 148. 352. 307 ,jr r/w 25(1) (A) Indian Arms Act, 1959 ghh;it:2 Cr.M.P.No.1515/2014 dt: 23.12.14. ...........
ghh;it 1y; fz;l tHf;fpy; rk;ke;jg;gl;l vjphp. mutpe;jd; vd;gth; ghh;it 2y; fz;l cj;jut[g;go nfhit khefh; gp4. ge;ja rhiy fhty; epiyaj;jpy; jpdKk; fhiy 10/00 kzpf;Fk; khiy 17/00 kzpf;Fk; kW cj;jut[ tUk;tiu ifbaGj;jpl ntz;Lk; vd cj;jutplg;gl;oUe;Jk;. nkw;go vjphp gp4. ge;ja rhiy fhty; epiyaj;jpy; ,J ehs; tiu ifbaGj;jpltpy;iy vd;gjid gzpt[ld; bjhptpj;Jf;bfhs;fpnwd;/ fhty; Ma;thsh;.
gp4. ge;jarhiy fhty; epiyak;. nfhit khefh;/ Going through the impugned order and the materials, it is clear that only after ascertaining the facts, that the petitioner was not complying with the conditions imposed in the bail order, application for cancellation of bail has been filed and taking note of the same, the learned Magistrate has cancelled the bail. There is no manifest legality warranting intervention. The impugned order is sustained and the criminal revision case is dismissed.
19.03.2015 vsm Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No To
1.The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvarur.
2.The Inspector of Police, Tiruvarur Town Police Station, Tiruvarur District.
3.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.
S.MANIKUMAR, J.
vsm Crl.R.C.No.231 of 2015 19.03.2015