Madras High Court
K.Krishnakanth vs The Sub-Inspector Of Police on 2 January, 2024
Author: M.Dhandapani
Bench: M.Dhandapani
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated : 02.01.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
Crl.O.P(MD).Nos.15459 and 15468 of 2023
Crl.O.P(MD).No.15459 of 2023
K.Krishnakanth ...Petitioner/De-facto complainant
vs.
1.The Sub-Inspector of Police,
Karur Town Police Station,
Karur.
Crime No.376/2023. ...1st respondent/complainant
2.Sasikumar ...2nd respondent/accused
Prayer : Petition filed under Section 439(2) r/w. Section 482 of Code of
Criminal Procedure to cancel the impugned bail granted to the second
respondent/accused in C.M.P.No.4001 of 2023 vide order dated 05.06.2023
by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Karur.
Crl.O.P(MD).No.15468 of 2023
Gayathry ...Petitioner/De-facto complainant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2
vs.
1.The Inspector of Police,
Karur Town Police Station,
Karur.
Crime No.377/2023. ...1st respondent/complainant
2.Regan
3.Rajan
4.Saravanan ...Respondents 2 to 4
/accused 5 to 7
Prayer:Petition filed under Section 439(2) r/w. Section 482 of Code of
Criminal Procedure to cancel the impugned bail order granted to the
respondents 2 to 4/accused 5 to 7 in C.M.P.No.921 of 2023 vide order dated
01.06.2023 by the Additional Mahila Court, Judicial Magistrate Level,
Karur.
For Petitioners : Mr.ARL.Sundaresan
in both petitions Senior Counsel for
Mr.A.P.Srinivas
For R1 : Mr.B.Nambiselvan
in both petitions Additional Public Prosecutor
For R2 : Mr.S.Mahendrapthy
in Crl.O.P(MD).No.15459
of 2023
For R2 to R4 : Mr.S.Mahendrapthy
in Crl.O.P(MD).No.15468
of 2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3
COMMON ORDER
The petitioners have filed the present petitions seeking to cancel the
impugned bail orders granted to the private respondents/accused in
C.M.P.Nos.921 and 4001 of 2023 dated 01.06.2023 and 05.06.2023
respectively by the Additional Mahila Court, Judicial Magistrate Level,
Karur and the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Karur.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners are working as
Inspector of Income Tax (Investigation) and the Assistant Director of
Income Tax (Investigation) respectively. A search warrant was issued on
25.05.2023 to carry out search in the premises of one Subramaniam and
Ashok Kumar. On 26.05.2023, when the petitioners and other officials were
executing the work, they were man-handled, physically assaulted and
prevented from discharging their duty, by a mob of more than 50 people.
They snatched away the search warrant, confidential documents and the
office seal. Therefore, a complaint was made before the first respondent
Police. Pursuant to the complaint, case in Crime Nos.376 and 377 of 2023
have been registered. Subsequently, the accused persons approached the
trial Court seeking bail and the trial Court, without considering the gravity
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
of offence committed by the accused, has granted bail to the accused
persons. Challenging the same, the present petitions are filed.
3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted
that in respect of similarly accused persons, the complainants have filed
petitions for cancellation of bail granted to them before this Court in
Crl.O.P(MD).Nos.11106, 11108, 11110, 11111, 11112 and 11115 of 2023
and the same were allowed by this Court vide order dated 28.07.2023,
thereby bail that was granted to the similarly accused persons was cancelled.
Hence, he prays for similar relief of cancelling the bail granted to the private
respondents herein/accused.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the private respondents submits
that bail was granted by the trial Court to the private respondents on
01.06.2023 and 05.06.2023. After a lapse of seven months, the present
petitions have been filed for cancellation of bail granted to the private
respondents, without any valid reasons. He further submits that the private
respondents are regularly complying with the conditions imposed by the
trial Court. Hence, he prays for dismissal of these petitions.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent and the
learned counsel appearing for the private respondents and perused the
materials available on record.
6. Section 439 (2) of Cr.P.C. clothes the Court with the power to deal
with issue relating to cancellation of bail. The Supreme Court has
enumerated the following supervening factors that justify cancellation of
bail :-
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;
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;
vii) Other supervening circumstances, which
have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by
being on bail.
7. The courts should be more rigid in its examination of violation and
proof of violation in matters relating to cancellation of bail. Various
decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court vests the courts with power and
discretion to cancel bail even when there are no supervening circumstances
and broadly classified, they could be brought under the following heads :-
i) Where the court granting bail ignores
relevant material and takes into account
irrelevant material of substantial nature and not
trivial nature;
ii) Where the court granting bail overlooks the
position of the accused qua the victim especially if
the accused is in some position of authority such
as a policeman and there is prima facie, a misuse
of position and power, including over the victim.
iii) Where the court granting bail ignores the
past criminal record and conduct of the accused
while granting bail;
iv) Where bail has been granted on untenable
grounds;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
v) Where the order granting bail suffers from
serious infirmities resulting in miscarriage of
justice;
vi) 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;
vii) When the order granting bail is apparently
whimsical, capricious and perverse in the facts of
the given case.
(Emphasis Supplied)
8. From the above, it is amply evident that even if there are no
supervening circumstances, even then the courts are empowered to cancel
the bail granted to the accused.
9. The facts in the present case and the manner in which the incident
happened are not in dispute. Admittedly, the petitioners were prevented by
the accused persons from carrying out their work and the accused persons
have snatched away the search warrant and confidential documents. If such
illegal activities are allowed, it is not feasible for the Officials to carry out
the work allotted to them. Further, the fact remains that the co-accused
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
persons were granted bail, after completing the statutory period. However,
in the present case, within a short span of time, the private respondents were
granted bail. As contended by the learned Senior Counsel, the bail granted
to the co-accused persons was cancelled by this Court in Crl.O.P(MD).Nos.
11106, 11108, 11110, 11111, 11112 and 11115 of 2023 on 28.07.2023
considering supervening circumstances and the relevant portions are
extracted hereunder:
“19.No doubt that as mentioned earlier, if intrusion is made
into the discharge of public duty in an unlawful manner, it must be
viewed seriously, even while entertaining the bail application. The
interest of the society at one end and individual liberty in another
end.
20.Since already the accused have been granted regular
bail, unless a strong case has been made out by the petitioners,
this court cannot interfere into the order passed by the trial court.
21.Before we go into the other aspects, let us extract the
observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment
reported in the case of Neeru Yadav Vs. State of U.P (2014)16
SCC 508, as under:-
“...Accent on individual liberty cannot be
pyramided to that extent which would bring chaos and
anarchy to a society. A society expects responsibility and
accountability from the member, and it desires that the
citizens should obey the law, respecting it as a cherished
social norm. No individual can make an attempt to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
create a concavity in the stem of social stream, It is
impermissible. Therefore, when an individual behaves in
a disharmonious manner ushering in disorderly things
which the society disapproves, the legal consequences
are bound to follow. At that stage, the Court has a duty.
It cannot abandon its sacrosanct obligation and pass an
order as its own whims or caprice. It has to be guided by
the established parameters of law.”
22.This observation guides us to decide the issue. The
question boils down a single point as to whether the established
parameters were taken into account by the trial court at the time of
entertaining and admitting the bail application. Some of the
parameters have been settled in plethora judgments.
23.In the judgment reported in the case of Bhoopendra Singh
Vs. State of Rajasthan and others [AIR-2021-SC-5514], by
referring the judgment rendered in Mahipal Vs. Rajesh Kumar
(2020)2 SCC 118, it has been held as follows:-
“9...It is trite that this Court does not, normally,
interfere with an order [Ashish Chaterjee v. State of W.B.,
CRM No.272 of 2010, order dated 11-1-2019 (Cal)] passed
by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the Accused.
However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to
exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in
compliance with the basis principles laid down in a plethora
of decisions of this Court on this point. It is well settled that,
among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind
while considering an application for bail are:
(i)whether there is any prima facie or reasonable
ground to believe that the Accused had committed the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
offence;
(ii)nature and gravity of the accusation;
(iii)severity of the punishment in the event of
conviction;
(iv)danger of the Accused absconding or fleeing, if
released on bail;
(v)character, behaviour, means, position and
standing of the Accused;
(vi)likelihood of the offence being repeated;
(vii)reasonable apprehension of the witnesses
being influenced; and
(viii)danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by
granting bail.
10.It is manifest that if the High Court does not
advert to these relevant considerations and mechanically
grants bail, the said order would suffer from the voice of
non-application of mind, rendering it to be illegal.”
24.According to the petitioners, not even a single sentence
has been devoted to discuss about the facts and circumstances of
the case.
25.The next aspect is, what are the limitation, while
entertaining the cancellation of bail orders and parameters.
Again, we can refer the Neeru Yadav's case.
'13.We have referred to certain principles to be kept
in mind while granting bail, as has been laid down by this
Court from time to time. It is well settled in law that
cancellation of bail after it is granted because the accused
has misconducted himself of or some supervening
circumstances warranting such cancellation have occurred
is in a different compartment altogether then an order
granting bail which is unjustified, illegal and perverse. If
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
in a case, the relevant factors which should have been
taken into consideration while dealing with the application
for bail and have not been taken note of bail or it is
founded on irrelevant considerations, indisputably the
superior court can set aside the order of such a grant of
bail. Such a case belongs to a different category and is in a
separate realm. While dealing with a case of second
nature, the Court does not dwell upon the violation of
conditions by the accused or the supervening
circumstances that have happened subsequently. It on the
contrary, delves into the justifiability and the soundness of
the order passed by the Court.”
10. It is trite that bail is the norm and jail is exception. However, it
should not be lost sight of that while granting bail, the courts should weigh
all the factors associated with the case while considering the bail application
of the accused. Prima facie satisfaction should be based on the hypotheses
of just and reasonableness and not on mere ipsi dixit of the court.
11. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Daulat
Ram – Vs – State of Haryana (1995 (1) SCC 349) comes to the aid of this
Court, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that once supervening
circumstances are brought to the notice of the Court, then the Court is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
clothed with power to revisit the bail granted to an accused. In the case on
hand, the non-application of mind on the part of the trial court while
granting bail to the accused definitely is a supervening circumstance, which
should weigh in the mind of this Court, while dealing with the prayer of the
petitioners for cancellation of the said bail. The gravity of the offence
committed by the accused persons and taking into consideration the fact that
investigation is still going on, the court below ought not to have enlarged
the accused on bail on the ground of period of incarceration. The said
ground alone would not suffice to grant bail to the private respondents.
12. In the above circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in
arriving at a conclusion that the trial Court erred in enlarging the private
respondents. Accordingly, the orders passed by the Additional Mahila
Court, Judicial Magistrate Level, Karur and the learned Judicial Magistrate
No.1, Karur, in C.M.P.Nos.921 and 4001 of 2023 dated 01.06.2023 and
05.06.2023 respectively, are set aside and the first respondent police is
directed to take immediate steps in accordance with law to arrest the private
respondents.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
13. With these directions, these Criminal Original Petitions are
allowed.
02.01.2024
ssb
Index : Yes/No
Speaking order/non speaking order
To
1.The Additional Mahila Court, Judicial Magistrate Level, Karur
2.The learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Karur
3.The Inspector of Police,
Karur Town Police Station,
Karur.
4. The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.DHANDAPANI,J.
ssb
Crl. O.P(MD) Nos.15459 and 15468 of 2023
02.01.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
