Panchavarnam vs The State Rep. By
2023 Latest Caselaw 3405 Mad

                                                                             Crl.O.P.(MD)No.797 of 2023



                        BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                   Date : 29.03.2023

                                                      CORAM:

                           THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

                                           Crl.O.P.(MD)No.797 of 2023


                     Panchavarnam                        ... Petitioner/De-facto complainant

                                                            vs.

                     1.The State Rep. by
                     The Inspector of Police,
                     Central Crime Branch,
                     Madurai City.
                     Crime No.12 of 2022

                     2.Sri Pugal Indira
                     3.Renuka                                          ... Respondents

                     PRAYER : This Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section
                     439(2) of Cr.P.C., to cancel the bail granted to the respondents 2 and 3/A1
                     and A2 herein in Crl.M.P.(MD)No.2389 of 2022 on the file of the learned
                     Principal Sessions Court, Madurai dated 09.06.2022 and commit them to
                     the judicial custody as per Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C.
                                  For Petitioner     : Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi
                                                       for Mr.S.Poornachandran

                                  For R1            : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh
                                                       Government Advocate (Crl. side)

                     1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                  Crl.O.P.(MD)No.797 of 2023



                                                           ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to cancel the bail

granted to the respondents 2 and 3/A1 and A2 herein in Crl.M.P.(MD)No.

2389 of 2022 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Court, Madurai

dated 09.06.2022

2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner paid a sum of

Rs.47,26,000/- to the respondents 2 and 3 herein in order to get suitable

job to the petitioner's daughter. On receipt of the same, the respondents 2

and 3 failed to get any job and also refused to return the amount. Hence,

the complaint.

3.On receipt of the said complaint, the first respondent registered

an FIR in Crime No.12 of 2022 for the offences under Sections 406 and

420 IPC. Pursuant to the registration of FIR, the respondents 2 and 3 were

arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 12.05.2022. Therefore, they

have filed a petition for bail. While pending bail petition, the respondents

2 and 3 have filed a compromise memo, as if, they have entered into

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.797 of 2023

compromise with the petitioner. It is to be noted that the respondents 2

and 3 have filed the said compromise memo without obtaining attestation

from the jail authorities that too when they were in prison. As per the

compromise memo, one of the condition that they shall mortgage the

property stands in the name of the third petitioner in favour of the

petitioner herein. Accordingly, they mortgaged the property and

thereafter, they failed to pay the amount in order to redeem the mortgage.

That apart, the Court below granted bail only based on the compromise

arrived between the parties and not on merits. Now the respondents 2 and

3 were arrested and remanded to judicial custody in another case, which

were also registered for similar offence. It seems that the respondents 2

and 3/A1 and A2 are habitual offenders and used to collect money from

general public in order to get job to them.

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the

Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Deepak

Yadav Vs. State of U.P & Anr reported in 2022 Livelaw (SC) 562, in

which, the relevant portion of the Judgment is extracted hereunder:-

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.797 of 2023

C. Cancellation of Bail “...30.This Court has reiterated in several instances that bail once granted, should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during trial. Having said that, in case of cancellation of bail, very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing cancellation of bail (which was already granted). A two-judge Bench of this Court in Dolat Ram and Others Vs. State of Haryana laid down the grounds for cancellation of bail which are:-

(i)interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of Justice evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice.

(ii) evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice.

(iii) abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner.

(iv) possibility of accused absconding.

(v) Likelihood of/actual misuse of bail

(vi) Likelihood of the accused tampering with the evidence or threatening witnesses.”

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.797 of 2023

5.It is true that the cancellation of bail cannot be limited to the

occurrence of supervening circumstances. This Court has the inherent

powers and discretion to cancel the bail of an accused even in the absence

of supervening circumstances. Where the Court granting bail takes into

account irrelevant material of substantial nature and not trivial nature

while ignoring relevant material on record. In the case on hand also, the

respondents 2 and 3 were granted bail by the Court below on the ground

of compromise entered into between the parties. However, according to

the petitioner, there was no compromise and even according to the

respondents 2 and 3/A1 and A2 herein are concerned, they mortgaged the

property in favour of the petitioner and thereafter, they failed to return the

amount in order to redeem the mortgage. Therefore, once false

representation made and the respondents 2 and 3/A1 and A2 have

obtained bail from the Court below. Hence, the respondents 2 and 3

herein are failed to comply with the condition as agreed by them and the

bail is liable to be cancelled.

6.The learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 would submit

that they have already handed over the entire bundle and they had given

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.797 of 2023

change of vakalath. Even then the respondents 2 and 3 herein have failed

to engage the new counsel and also no appearance today either by person

or through pleader.

7.Accordingly, the order of bail granted to the respondents 2 and 3

in Crl.M.P.No.2389 of 2022 by the learned Principal Sessions Court,

Madurai, dated 09.06.2022 is cancelled and this petition is allowed. The

first respondent police is directed to secure the respondents 2 and 3 and

proceed in accordance with law.

29.03.2023

sji NCC: Yes/No Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No To

1.The Principal Sessions Court, Madurai.

2.The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Madurai City.

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.797 of 2023

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.797 of 2023

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN , J.

sji

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.797 of 2023

29.03.2023

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis