Madras High Court
Sudhakar vs The State Rep. By on 11 August, 2021
Crl.R.C(MD)No.154 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 11.08.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.PONGIAPPAN
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.154 of 2017
1.Sudhakar
2.Bose @ Bojan @ Balamuruganantham : Petitioners/Respondents/
Petitioner/Accused Nos.1 & 2
Vs.
The State Rep. by
The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Kodaikanal,
Dindigul District,
(Crime No.145 of 2016) : Respondent/Petitioner/
Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER: The Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 r/w 401
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records pertaining to the
Crl.M.P.No.87 of 2017 in Crl.M.P.No.2438 of 2016, dated 04.02.2017 on
the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Dindigul District in Crime No.145
of 2016, on the file of the respondent and set aside the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Mayil Vahana Rajendran
for Mr.P.Banuprasath
For Respondent : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar
Government Advocate (Crl.side)
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C(MD)No.154 of 2017
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order, dated
04.02.2017 in Crl.M.P.No.87 of 2017, on the file of the Principal Sessions
Court, Dindigul.
2. The revision petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.1 & 2 in
Cr.No.145 of 2016, on the file of the respondent police. Initially, the said
case has been registered against the revision petitioners for the offences
punishable under Sections 294(b) and 323 of IPC. During the time of
investigation, the section of law has been altered into Sections 294(b), 323
of IPC r/w Section 3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015. After
altering the section of law as stated above, the revision petitioners filed a
direction petition before this Court praying to direct the learned Principal
District and Sessions Judge, (Special Court for Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Dindigul District to
accept the surrender of the petitioners and consider the petitioners' bail
application and to grant bail on the date of surrender itself. This Court, by
order, dated 29.09.2016 had directed the petitioners to surrender before the
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dindigul District. Obeying the said
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C(MD)No.154 of 2017
order, the petitioners were surrendered before the said Court and thereafter,
vide order, dated 18.10.2016 made in Crl.M.P.No.2438 of 2016 they were
enlarged on bail.
3. In the meanwhile, the defacto complainant, who was the victim
in the alleged occurrence taking treatment in the hospital, was passed away
and due to the death of the defacto complainant, the section of law had
again altered as 294(b),323 and 302 of IPC r/w Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)
(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 2015. Only in the said circumstances, the
respondent in this Criminal Revision Case filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.87
of 2017 before the Principal Sessions Court, Dindigul District praying to
cancel the order, dated 18.10.2016, wherein, the revision petitioners are
granted with bail.
4. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Dindigul after perusing
the arguments advanced by either side, by order, dated 04.02.2017 allowed
the application made in Crl.M.P.No.87 of 2017 and cancelled the bail
granted in favour of the revision petitioners. Aggrieved over the said order,
the petitioners are before this Court praying to set aside the order, dated
04.02.2017 made in Crl.M.P.No.87 of 2017.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C(MD)No.154 of 2017
5. I have heard Mr.C.Mayil Vahana Rajendran, learned counsel
appearing for the revision petitioners and Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar,
learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondent. I
have also perused the records carefully.
6. Now, on going through the impugned order passed by the
Courts below, it appears that due to altering of offence under Section 302 of
IPC it requires for the Investigating Officer that he has to proceed with the
investigation in all aspects and laid the final report and therefore, if the
petitioners/accused are on bail, it would cause much prejudice to the
investigation and therefore, the bail granted already in favour of the
petitioners is liable to be cancelled.
7. In this occasion, it would relevant to see the judgment of our
Hon'ble Apex Court in Pradeep Ram Vs. State of Jharkhand and another
reported in 2019 (4) CTC 575, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as
follows:-
“In view of the foregoing discussions, we arrive at
following conclusions in respect of a circumstance, where
after grant of Bail to an Accused, further cognizable and non-
bailable offences are added:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C(MD)No.154 of 2017
(I) The Accused can surrender and apply for Bail
for newly added cognizable and non-bailable offences. In
event of refusal of Bail, the Accused can certainly be arrested.
(ii) The Investigating Agency can seek order from
the Court under Section 437(5) or 439(2) of Cr.P.C., for
arrest of the Accused and his custody.
(iii) The Court, in exercise of power under Section
437(5) or 439(2) or Cr.P.C., can direct for taking into custody
the Accused, who has already been granted Bail after
cancellation of his Bail. The Court in exercise of power
under Section 437(5) as well as Section 439(2) can direct the
person, who has already been granted Bail to be arrested and
commit him to custody on addition of graver and non-
cognizable offences which may not be necessary always with
order of cancelling of earlier Bail.
(iv) In a case where an Accused has already been
granted Bail, the Investigating Authority on addition of an
offence or offences may not proceed to arrest the Accused, but
for arresting the Accused on such addition of offence or
offences it need to obtain an Order to arrest the Accused from
the Court which had granted the Bail.”
8. Now, on considering the said submissions with relevant
records, this Court is of the view that the order passed by the Courts below
is well within the law already laid down by our Hon'ble Apex Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C(MD)No.154 of 2017
9. In otherwise, in respect to granting of bail, our Hon'ble Apex
Court in the judgment in Dataram Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
another reported in (2018) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 675, had observed
as follows:-
“A fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence
is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person
is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are
instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been
placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but
that is another matter and does not detract from the
fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another
important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant
of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a
prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may
wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic
principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that
more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer
periods. This does not do any good to our criminal
jurisprudence or to our society.”
Therefore, as per the observation of our Hon'ble Apex Court, there is no
doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the Judge
considering a case but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C(MD)No.154 of 2017
circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered by the Supreme
Court and by every High Court in the Country.
10. In the said circumstances, as far as this petition is concerned,
it is not in dispute on either side that the death of the defacto complainant
would occur after four months from the date of occurrence. Therefore, it is
obvious, the death is may or may not due to the attack made by the
petitioners. But, without considering the said aspect, the learned Principal
Sessions Judge, Dindigul cancelled the bail and thereby, the Criminal
Revision Case is arises before this Court.
11. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing on
behalf of the respondent would submit that while at the time of admitting
the Criminal Revision Case, vide order, dated 21.02.2017 in
Crl.M.P(MD)No.1520 of 2017, this Court had stayed the order passed by
the Principal Sessions Judge, Dindigul and in view of the same, the
petitioners are appeared before the Principal District Court, Dindigul and as
of now, the case pertains to the revision petitioners has been committed to
the Court of Sessions and pending for trial.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C(MD)No.154 of 2017
12. The said submission made by the learned Government
Advocate (Crl.side) would reveal the fact that further custodial interrogation
of the petitioners is not at all necessary in this Case. Further, due to the
reasons that the investigation has already been completed, confirming the
order, dated 04.02.2017 is nothing but violating the rights of the accused.
Accordingly, I am of the view that the present situation now arises in this
case is sufficient to hold that the petitioners are entitled to enlarge on bail.
13. Accordingly, in the light of the above, this Criminal Revision
Case is allowed by setting aside the order of the Principal Sessions Court,
Dindigul, dated 04.02.2017 made in Crl.M.P.No.87 of 2017.
11.08.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
am
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C(MD)No.154 of 2017
To
1.The Principal Sessions Judge,
Dindigul District.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Kodaikanal,
Dindigul District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C(MD)No.154 of 2017
R.PONGIAPPAN,J.
am
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.154 of 2017
11.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
