High CourtsSINGLE BENCH(2017) 03 MAD CK 0056

Andrews, & Anr. vs The Inspector of Police, Kudankulam Police Station

Madras High Court · Decided on 23 March 2017

HON’BLE JUDGES
A.M.Basheer Ahamed
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
198 of 2016

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

47 paragraphs · 1,008 words
1.

This Criminal Revision Case is filed praying to call for the records in Crl.M.P.No. 1568 of 2017 dated 20.02.2017, on the file of the learned

Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor, and set aside the same and allow the Revision.

2.

The following facts are admitted in this Revision by both parties.

The present Revision Petitioners are A2 and A3 in Crime No.204 of 2016, on the file of the Inspector of Police, Koodankulam Police Station,

against the accused in this case, for the offences punishable under Sections 302 of IPC., @ Sections 379, 376 and 302 of IPC. According to the

prosecution, on 10.11.2016, the accused in this case, joined together, gang raped a victim, who is 60 years old, who was a mentally instable

woman, who was also not aware of the circumstances prevailing around her and further, all the accused murdered the victim by banging the

victim''s head a heavy boulder and due to which, the victim succumbed to the injuries. Out of the four accused, two are juveniles and others two

accused, who are the petitioners herein, were remanded on 11.11.2016. While the investigation was on progress, the petitioners herein moved a

bail application before the Principal Sessions Court in Crl.M.P.No.176 of 2017 and the said application was dismissed on 18.01.2017.

Thereafter, the accused / petitioners moved an application for bail before this Court in Crl.O.P(MD)No. 880 of 2017 on 27.01.2017.

3.

The learned Government Advocate (crl.side) appearing for the respondent would contend that the matter regarding the grant of bail, as such,

has been seized by this Court. Pending disposal, the petitioners had made a statutory bail application under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C., before the

learned Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor in Cr.MP.No.982 of 2017, on 09.02.2017. Since the Police Authorities have not filed charge sheet within

the stipulated period of 90 days nor sought for extension of time for filing the charge sheet and suppressing the fact of pendency of the bail

application before this Court, the petitioners obtained statutory bail. The prosecution has averred the entire facts about the pendency of

Crl.O.P(MD)No.880 of 2017 before this Court and pray for cancellation of the bail ordered in Crl.M.P.No.982 of 2017, considering the reasons

assigned in the application filed by the prosecution. The learned Magistrate, Valliyoor, has cancelled the bail granted in favour of the petitioners in

Crl.M.P.No.982 of 2017, since they have suppressed the material facts regarding the pendency of Crl.O.P(MD)No.880 of 2017, before this

Court and further directed that the petitioners herein shall be arrested immediately on due warrants from that Court and shall be remanded to

judicial custody with immediate effect. Questioning the above said cancellation of bail, the petitioners, who are the accused in the said criminal

case, has filed the present Revision.

4.

Perused the materials on records produced in this Revision by the petitioners herein and also heard the rival submissions made by either counsel

appearing for the parties.

5.

It is admitted that the petitioners have moved Crl.O.P(MD)No.880 of 2017 before this Court, seeking bail. In the application, this Court has

passed an order to the effect that ""though it is stated that they have been in custody for almost 80 days, that itself cannot be a ground for releasing

the petitioners / A2 and A3 on bail. The investigation is going on and is in the crucial stage and therefore, there is every likelihood of the petitioners

/ A2 and A3 meddling with the evidence, in case, they are released on bail. It is a rare among rarest cases and therefore, the petitioners / A2 and

A3 do not deserve any sympathy. Hence, the relief sought for by the petitioners / A2 and A3 cannot be granted and the same is rejected.....

However, this Court keeps this petition pending for getting response from the proposed parties fro the queries to be raised by this Court in the

interest of the Society. Call on 20.02.2017.

6.

The above said order was passed by this Court on 06.02.2017, rejecting the relief of bail sought for by the petitioners / A2 and A3 herein. It is

admitted that petitioners / A2 and A3 moved an application in Cr.M.P.No.982 of 2017, under Section 167 (2) of Cr.P.C., seeking statutory bail,

before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor and the said application was also ordered. Hence, it is not disputed that though the application

moved by the petitioners herein in Crl.O.P(MD)No.880 of 2017 is pending before this Court and the relief of bail sought for by the petitioners /

A2 and A3 was rejected by this Court, as per the order dated 06.02.2017 and thereafter, the petitioners moved an application in Cr.M.P.No.982

of 2017, for granting statutory bail, on 09.02.2017, only after rejection of their relief of bail by this Court, as per the order dated 06.02.2017. The

granting the relief of statutory bail in favour of the petitioners is validly passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor. The statutory bail

granted by the said Court was cancelled on the application of the respondent police before the concerned Court, without Notice to the accused.

Hence, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor, has failed to follow the principles of natural justice before passing the order of cancellation,

without hearing the petitioners herein, which is illegal one, in the eye of law.

7.

Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the relief of bail moved by the petitioners herein before this

Court was rejected, as per the order dated 06.02.2017 and statutory bail was granted thereafter, and further, without hearing the petitioners,

cancelling the bail granted to the petitioners herein is an illegal one, this Court is inclined to allow the Revision. The petitioners are ordered to be set

liberty in this case, if they were arrested in view of the impugned order by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor

8.

In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor, in Crl.M.P.No. 1568 of

2017, dated 20.02.2017, is set aside, as above