Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2.Crl.O.P.No.7930 of 2020 is filed against the order of the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai in granting interim bail to the respondent in Crl.M.P.No. Unnumbered/2020 dated 23.05.2020 and also filed Crl.M.P.No.4009 of 2020 to stay the grant of interim bail.

3.In the above Criminal Original petition, the de-facto complainant/second respondent filed intervening petition, counter and rejoinder. The first respondent/State has filed common counter.

10.The contention of the Special Public Prosecutor is that the order passed by the lower court is contrary to law and the lower court ought to have seen the mandatory requirement of giving notice to the defacto complainant is not followed, while granting interim bail to the accused, the reason given by the lower court for not giving notice to the defacto complainant for the reason that he is at Madurai and the possibility of hearing him at present is remote possibility is not a valid reason. Further the pendency of the Crl.O.P.No.7929 of 2020 filed by the accused seeking direction to the learned principal Sessions Judge to consider his bail application on the same day of his surrender is no way relevant after accepting the remand of the accused. It is further submitted that after accepting the prayer for remand of the accused under S.C./S.T. Act, the prayer in the direction petition filed before the High Court become infructuous and therefore considering the pendency of the direction petition as one of the ground for granting interim bail to the respondent is not in accordance with the facts and circumstances of the case. Further, the lower court erred in ordering interim bail to the accused without any bail application and after accepting the case of the http://www.judis.nic.in  Crl.O.P.Nos.7929 & 7930 of 2020 and Crl.A.No.234 of 2020 prosecution as prima facie made out. The Lower Court ought to have remanded the accused instead of granting interim bail. The other reason given by the Lower Court for granting interim bail is that the son of the accused is a doctor in Government General Hospital treating patients exposed to virus and the accused was in self quarantine, in the absence of any material, the same is not acceptable. The Lower Court after having accepted the prayer for remand that prima facie case made out for remand, then the question of grating interim bail does not arise. Whether Section 439 Cr.P.C used are not, nothing is mentioned in the bail order. The interim bail or absolute bail, the accused is enjoying freedom. The word alms and benevolence are synonyms. The intention is the question now. The explanation given by the petitioner in using word “pitchai” in Tamil and in English “Mercy” is not acceptable. A prima facie case is made out and overtact is in conformity to the offence charged. Injustice has been done by the Court by not giving notice to the victim under Section 15-A of the Act. However, how big a person may be the law is above him, no person is above law. He further submitted that the case law referred by the petitioner is for under trial and convicts prisoners and not for remand prisoners.

12.The Senior Counsel Mr.A.Ramesh filed the appeal to cancel the interim bail has submitted that the order of the Lower Court is perse illegal, perverse and unjustified. The Court was swayed by extraneous circumstances while granting bail to the accused, eventhough the court found that a prima facie case was made out. The informant was not heard, violation of Section 15-A(5) had occurred. The only reason for granting interim bail is on the oral arguments that the accused was in home quarantine and there is possibility of other inmates being infected by Covid -19. Further, when the accused had committed offence against http://www.judis.nic.in  Crl.O.P.Nos.7929 & 7930 of 2020 and Crl.A.No.234 of 2020 the oppressed community such benevolence should not be shown and such an order passed is in clear derogation of the Statutory protection given to the victim. Further, there is no mention in the interim bail order about any bail application, filed and on copy of the bail application is furnished either to the complainant or to the public prosecutor.

17.In addition to the above submissions made, Mr.R.Shanmugasundaram, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner/accused submitted that the Crl.O.P.No.7000 of 2020 is filed to quash the above case which is pending before this Court. He further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sukhwant Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2009) 7 SCC 559 has held that the Court has got the power to grant bail as well the interim bail. Therefore the learned Principal Sessions Judge, having been vested with the power to grant interim bail in the present case has granted the same. It is further submitted that the Lower Court had exercised its discretionary powers http://www.judis.nic.in  Crl.O.P.Nos.7929 & 7930 of 2020 and Crl.A.No.234 of 2020 while granting interim bail. In support of the same, he has also relied upon the Judgment in the case of Amarawati and Another (Smt) V. State of U.P. reported in 2005 Crl LJ 755 . He further relied upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madhu Limaye and Ors. Vs. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Monghyr and Ors. reported in (1970) 3 SCC 746 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that pending the completion of the enquiry, an interim bond can be asked for if immediate measures are necessary.