Madras High Court

Ranjith vs The Deputy Superintendent Of Police on 5 April, 2024

                                                                           CRL.A(MD).No. 1122 of 2023


                          BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                  DATE : 05.04.2024

                                                       CORAM

                           THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN

                                           CRL.A(MD).No.1122 of 2023

                    Ranjith                                           : Appellant
                                                       Vs.

                    1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
                      Thiruvidaimaruthur Division,
                      Thiruvidaimaruthur Police Station,
                      Thanjavur District.

                    2.The Inspector of Police,
                      Thiruvidaimaruthur Police Station,
                      Thanjavur District.
                      In Crime No.486 of 2023                 : Respondents 1&2

                    3.Jaya                                    : 3rd Respondent/defacto
                                                                            Complainant

                    Prayer : This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 14-A(1) of the
                    Schedule Caste and the Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
                    Amendment Act,1989, to call for the records and set aside the order dated
                    10.11.2023, passed in Cr.M.P.No.426 of 2023 on the file of the learned I
                    Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Thanjavur District.
                                  For Appellant         : Mr.C.Suresh Kannan
                                  For R1 & R2           : Mr.M.Muthumanikkam
                                                          Government Advocate (Criminal Side)


                   1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                          CRL.A(MD).No. 1122 of 2023



                                   For R3               : Mr.R.M.Siranjeevi
                                                          Legal Aid Counsel


                                                      JUDGMENT

The Sole accused/appellant in Crime No.486 of 2023 on the file of

the second respondent filed this appeal challenging the impugned

cancellation of bail order dated 10.11.2023, passed in Cr.M.P.No.426 of

2023 on the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge

(PCR), Thanjavur District.

2.The defacto complainant/third respondent's parents entered into

agreement with the appellant's father to purchase a property. As per the

defacto complainant's version, the parents of the defacto complainant

already paid advance amount of Rs.1,15,000/-. Thereafter, the appellant's

father refused to execute sale deed. Hence, there was dispute between the

appellant's father and the parents of the defacto complainant. In the said

circumstances, on 02.07.2023, it is alleged that the appellant trespassed

into the house of the defacto complainant and scolded her by using her

caste name and criminally intimidated her. Therefore, she gave a

complaint to the respondent Police and on receipt of the complaint, the FIR

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

in Crime No.486 of 2023 was registered for the offences under Sections

420, 448, 294(b) and 506(ii) of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3 (2)

(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989. After registration of the case, the

petitioner was arrested and confined in jail on 11.07.2023. Thereafter, the

bail was granted to the appellant, in Crl.M.P.No.354 of 2023 dated

11.07.2023 by the learned 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge(PCR),

Thanjavur, with the condition to appear before the Ariyalur Police Station,

daily at 10.00 a.m until further orders. As per the direction, the appellant is

said to have complied with the condition from 10.08.2023 to 17.08.2023,

19.08.2023, 20.08.2023 and 22.08.2023. During the interregnum period,

he has failed to comply with the condition. Hence, the prosecution moved

the cancellation of bail and the same was allowed by passing the impugned

order dated 10.11.2023, in Crl.M.P.No.426 of 2023 and the bail was

cancelled in Crl.M.P.No.426 of 2023, dated 10.11.2023.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the

appellant appeared before the trial Court and gave his explanation for his

non appearance for three days. He specifically stated since he had to attend

the Court proceeding in the Fast Tract Court, Kumbakonam, posted on

those days, he has not appeared before the Ariyalur Police Station situated

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

at faraway place. The appellant residence place is Thiruvisanallur and he

has to comply the condition to make appearance at Ariyalur Police Station

situated at 200 Kms away from his residence. The Kumbakonam Court is

situated at 70 Kms from the native place and 270 Kms from the Ariyalur

Police Station. Due to his attendance in the Court proceedings pending in

the said Kumbakonam Court, he has not appeared and signed in the

Ariyalur Police Station. The learned trial judge has cancelled the bail

without ascertaining whether the explanation is false or not and hence, he

seeks to set aside the cancellation of bail order.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the

respondents 1 and 2 reiterated the reasons stated by the learned trial judge.

Hence, he seeks for dismissal of the appeal.

5.The learned counsel appearing for the intervener/defacto

complainant also endorsed the submission of the learned Government

Advocate (Crl. Side) and seeks for dismissal of the appeal an specific

ground that there was no compliance of the condition imposed by the

Court below.

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

6.This Court considered the rival submission and also perused

record and impugned order.

7.From the records, it is clear that the lower Court granted bail in

favour of the appellant with condition that the appellant is to appear before

the Ariyalur Police Station at 10.00 a.m., until further orders. From the

records, it is clear that the said condition has been complied by the

appellant on all days except three days. The appellant has submitted an

explanation before the Court below the reason for his absence on those

three days. From the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, it

is clear that both Kumbakonam Court and Ariyalur Police Station are

situated at distant places from the native place of the appellant. It is

humanly impossible to attend the Court proceedings after complying the

condition in the Ariyalur Police Station. The learned Trial Judge has not

considered the said explanation of the appellant that he was unable to

comply the condition due to his appearance before the Kumbakonam

Court. The defacto complainant and the prosecutor also not disputed the

said fact. Therefore, this Court considers the said explanation is

reasonable. The learned trial judge has neither considered the explanation

nor held that the same was false and simply cancelled the bail.

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

8.The bail was granted on 07.08.2023 and was cancelled on

10.11.2023 only on the ground that he has not complied the condition for

three days. In the considered opinion of this Court, the said non

compliance of the condition for three days is not a ground to cancel the

bail granted to the appellant without considering his explanation that he

has appeared before the Court proceedings. In the said circumstances, this

Court does not find any ground to invoke the power of cancellation of bail.

It is settled principle that cancellation of bail deprives the personal

freedom of the accused. Hence, the Hon'ble Supreme Court issued detailed

guidelines to be followed before invoking the power of cancellation of bail

in the case of Deepak Yadav v. State of U.P., reported in 2022 (8)SCC559,

wherein it has been held as follows:

“31. 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).

32.A two-Judge Bench of this Court in Dolat Ram v.

State of Haryana [Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana,

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

[(1995) 1 SCC 349] laid down the grounds for cancellation of bail which are:

(i) interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration 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 the accused absconding;

(v) likelihood of/actual misuse of bail;

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

33. It is no doubt true that cancellation of bail cannot be limited to the occurrence of supervening circumstances. This Court certainly has the inherent powers and discretion to cancel the bail of an accused even in the absence of supervening circumstances. Following are the illustrative circumstances where the bail can be cancelled:

33.1.Where the court granting bail takes into account irrelevant material of substantial nature and not trivial nature while ignoring relevant material on record. 33.2. Where the Court granting bail overlooks the influential position of the accused in comparison to the victim of abuse of or the witnesses especially when there is prima facie misuse of position and power over the victim.

33.3. Where the past criminal record and conduct of the accused is completely ignored while granting bail. 33.4. Where bail has been granted on untenable grounds.

33.5. Where serious discrepancies are found in the order granting bail thereby causing prejudice to justice. 33.6. Where the grant of bail was not appropriate in the first place given the very serious nature of the charges against the accused which disentitles him for bail and thus cannot be justified.

33.7. When the order granting bail is apparently whimsical, capricious and perverse in the facts of the given case.”

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

9.It is well settled principle that before cancellation of bail, the

parameters laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court are to be

considered. Inspite of the explanation given by the appellant, the learned

trial judge has not considered the same and not recorded a finding that the

explanation is false. Apart from that this Court finds no other reason

including any threatening caused to the victim or any tampering of

evidence. In addition to that considering the nature of allegation of

threatening of the victim and the victim has not sustained any injury and

the dispute is only relating to the execution of the sale agreement, this

Court finds no ground to cancel the bail granted to the appellant and the

prosecution has not produced any material to show that the case of the

appellant comes under the above guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court. Therefore, this court is inclined to set aside the cancellation of bail

order passed by the Court below.

10.Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the order, dated

10.11.2023, passed in Cr.M.P.No.426 of 2023 on the file of the learned I

Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Thanjavur District, is set

aside. The appellant is directed to appear before the respondent Police

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

daily at 10.00 a.m., until further order. It is made clear the appellant is

permitted to make his appearance before any other Court proceedings after

giving intimation to the respondent Police till the condition imposed in

this appeal is either modified or relaxed.