Madras High Court
J.Mohanram vs State Represented By on 24 March, 2022
Crl.O.P.No.6235 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 24.03.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
Crl.O.P.No.6235 of 2022 and
Crl.M.P.No.3520 of 2022
J.Mohanram ...Petitioner
-Vs-
State represented by,
The Inspector of Police,
T-5, Thiruverkadu Police Station,
Thiruverkadu.
(Crime No.500/2004) ..Respondent
Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the
Criminal Procedure Code, praying to call for the records in
C.C.No.519/2005 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II,
Poonnamaallee and set aside the Docket Order dated 10.05.2021.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Vivekananthan
For Respondent : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan
Additional Public Prosecutor.
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.6235 of 2022
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records in
C.C.No.519/2005 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II,
Poonnamaallee and set aside the Docket Order dated 10.05.2021.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
petitioner is an accused in Crime No.500 of 2004 registered on 19.09.2004
by the respondent for the offences under Section 286 of IPC r/w Section 5
and Section 6 (A) of Explosives Substances Act 1908. The petitioner was
arrested on 28.12.2004, thereafter the petitioner was granted statutory bail
under Section 167(2) of CrPC by the learned Judicial Magistrate - II,
Poonamallee on 18.04.2005. The respondent after completing the
investigation had filed the final report and it has been taken up in
C.C.No.519 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate - II, Poonamallee.
The petitioner was not served with any summons. Whileso, the petitioner
was arrested on 10.10.2018 in connection with a case in Crime No.592 of
2015 registered by the Sulur Police Station for the offences under Section
120(b), 174, 148, 149, 302 & 307 of IPC r/w Section 25(1B) (a) and 27 of
Indian Arms Act, 1959. While the petitioner was in custody, a PT warrant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.6235 of 2022
was issued against the petitioner on 29.11.2018 in C.C.No.519/2005 by the
learned Judicial Magistrate - II, Poonamallee. Thereafter, the petitioner was
detained under Act 14 by an order dated 10.12.2018. The petitioner had
filed HCP.No.2896 of 2018 and this Court by an order dated 10.06.2019,
quashed the detention order and subsequently, the petitioner had filed bail
application in Crime No.592 of 2015 registered by the Sulur Police Station
and this Court by an order dated 19.07.2019 in Crl.O.P.No.18984 of 2019
had granted condition bail to the petitioner. As against the said order, the
Sulur police had preferred SLP.No.9315 of 2019 to cancel the bail before
the Hon'ble Apex Court. However, the SLP.No.9315 of 2019 was dismissed
by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 07.03.2022. Further while, the petitioner
was under preventive detention he was produced through PT warrant before
the Judicial Magistrate - II, Poonamallee in C.C.No.519/2015 on
10.05.2021. The learned Judge without affording any opportunity to the
petitioner had forfeited the bond and had remanded the petitioner to judicial
custody in CC.No.519 of 2015.
3. The learned counsel would reiterate that in CC.No.519 of 2015,
summons were not served on the petitioner till his arrest in the subsequent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.6235 of 2022
case and even prior to 29.11.2018, on the previous hearing date on
20.11.2018, the daily status of the E-Courts services shows (Issue FS to
A4). Till the arrest of the petitioner in the subsequent case in Cr.No.592 of
2015, bail granted to the petitioner in C.C.No.500 of 2004 was not
cancelled. The petitioner was produced on PT warrant from Coimbatore
prison on 10.05.2021 before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Poonamallee and
the learned Magistrate without affording any opportunity to the petitioner,
had immediately on production before the Court on 10.05.2021 had
forfeited the bond and further without affording opportunity to furnish fresh
bond had cancelled the bail and remanded him to judicial custody.
4. The learned counsel would submit that the procedure adopted by
the learned Magistrate in remanding the accused without cancellation of
earlier bail is erroneous. He would submit that the petitioner was not
absconding and that no summons were served on him till his arrest in the
subsequent case. The learned counsel would submit that in such
circumstances when the accused is on bail and if he is produced on PT
warrant by police, opportunity should be given to the accused to explain the
reason for his non appearance and if the accused is able to satisfactorily
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.6235 of 2022
explain the reason for his absence before the Court, he could be let of by
recalling the warrant. Otherwise, the trial Court is required to record reason
and give a finding that the bond has been forfeited. However, the learned
Judge without following the procedure and without taking into
consideration, the explanation given by the petitioner has forfeited the bond
and had remanded him to judicial custody. The Court has also proceeded to
cancel the bail on the same day of his production before the Court, thereby
he would seek to set aside the order passed by the learned Judge and seek to
enlarge the petitioner on bail by accepting fresh sureties.
5. He would submit that in the case of Palanivel Vs. State rep by
Inspector of Police, Veeranam Police Station, Salem District reported in
(2019) 3 MLJ (Crl.) 351 in a similar situation a question was raised when
an accused person who is on bail is arrested in another case and bought
before Court on PT warrant, whether the PT warrant can be converted into a
regular warrant and he be remanded to custody? This Court has held that a
PT warrant cannot be converted to a regular warrant, when the accused is
already on bail and he cannot be remanded on the strength of the PT
warrant. In this case also the bail has not been cancelled.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.6235 of 2022
6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the
case is of the year 2005 and the respondent completed the investigation and
filed final report in CC.No.519 of 2005. The petitioner though granted
statutory bail on 18.04.2005 did not appear before the Court and the steps
taken by the respondent to serve summons on the petitioner ended in
futility. Subsequently, he was arrested in connection in Cr.No.519 of 2015
registered by the Sulur Police Station and that the petitioner was in judicial
custody in Coimbatore Prison. The trial Court had issued P.T.warrant for
production of the accused and the petitioner was produced on 10.05.2021
and the trial Judge had forfeited the bond and had remanded him to custody.
Further, he would fairly submit that the summons have not been served on
the petitioner in CC.No.519 of 2005 and the statutory bail granted earlier in
Cr.No.500 of 2004 on the file of the respondent was not cancelled.
7. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
8. The petitioner is an accused in Cr.No.500 of 2004 registered by the
respondent, he was arrested on 28.12.2004 and thereafter the petitioner had
been granted statutory bail under Section 167(2) Cr.PC on 18.04.2005. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.6235 of 2022
petitioner has furnished sureties and he has been let out on bail. Thereafter,
the summons have not been served on the petitioner. The E-Courts status
before the arrest of the petitioner on 20.11.2018 discloses (Issue FS to A4)
thereby meaning that summons were not served. The bail granted to the
petitioner had not been cancelled so far.
9. In Palanivel case (cited supra), this Court at paragraph 20 had
raised a question "(a)When an accused person is on bail and he fails to
appear before the trial Court resulting in a non-bailable warrant issued
against him and the accused gets arrested in another case and he is
produced before the trial Court through the PT warrant, in execution of the
non-bailable warrant, whether the PT warrant can be converted into a
regular warrant and the accused person can be remanded to custody."
The above question was answered by this Court at Paragraph 29 of
the judgment "29. It is therefore clear that a PT warrant can never be
converted into a regular warrant, in a case where the accused person is
already on bail and thereby it does not authorize the Court to remand the
accused on a strength of a regular warrant. The first issue raised before
this Court is answered accordingly."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.6235 of 2022
10. In this case, as stated above, the petitioner was granted statutory
bail, pursuant to which he has produced sureties and thereafter let out on
bail. The record shows that after filing of the final report and taking
cognizance summons issued from the Court had not been served on the
petitioner who has been ranked as A4. E-Courts status shows that fresh
summons were issued to the petitioner who was ranked as A4. Under such
circumstances, when the petitioner was on bail and without his bail bond
being cancelled, the learned Judge has remanded the petitioner when he was
produced before the Court on a PT warrant. The petitioner was not afforded
an opportunity to explain the reason for his non appearance before the Court
and to execute fresh personal bond.
11. Admittedly, in this case, when the Court status itself shows that
the summons were not served on the petitioner and when no NBW had been
issued there is no requirement for the petitioner to explain as to why he did
not appear before the Court from the particular date onwards. The learned
Judge had misconstrued para 34 of the judgment reported in Palanivel case
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.6235 of 2022
(cited supra). Further, no opportunity was given to the petitioner to execute
fresh personal bond and furnish sureties. In such circumstances, the order
remanding the petitioner to custody is erroneous.
12. As stated above, the petitioner had not been served with summons
and the bail already granted was also not cancelled. In view of the above,
the docket entry of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Poonamallee dated
10.05.2021 stands set aside. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail
with the following directions :-
a)the petitioner is directed to be produced before the Court below and
the petitioner shall execute a fresh bail bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- along
with two sureties for a like sum, out of which one surety shall be a blood
relative.
b)The petitioner shall appear before the Judicial Magistrate No.II,
Poonamallee on all hearing dates at 10.30 a.m. until the completion of the
proceedings in CC.No.519 of 2005. This condition shall not be relaxed till
the completion of the proceedings.
c)the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness during trial.
d)the petitioners shall not abscond during trial.
e)on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the Trial Court is
entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with
law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.6235 of 2022
bail by the Trial Court itself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
P.K.Shaji Vs. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560];
f)if the petitioner thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered
under Section 229A IPC.
g)The Trial Court shall proceed further with the trial on a day-to-day
basis in accordance with the guidelines given in Vinod Kumar Vs State of
Punjab reported in 2015 (1) MLJ (Crl) 288 SC.
h)If the petitioner adopts any dilatory tactics, it is open to the trial
Court to remand the petitioner to custody as laid down by the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Shambhu Nath
Singh (JT 2001 (4) SC 319).
i)The Trial Court shall complete the proceedings in CC.No.519 of
2005 as expeditiously as possible.
14. With the above directions, the criminal original petition is
ordered. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
24.03.2022
Index : Yes/No
jas/tsh
Note : Issue copy on 04.04.2022.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.6235 of 2022
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Poonnamaallee
2. Inspector of Police,
T-5, Thiruverkadu Police Station,
Thiruverkadu.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
4. The Superintendent,
Central Prison,
Puzhal, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.6235 of 2022
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA.J
jas/tsh
Crl.O.P.No.6235 of 2022 and
Crl.M.P.No.3520 of 2022
24.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
