AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Arumugham, J.—Heard both. The impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Tuticorin in Crl. M.P. No. 2660/96 dated 28.11.1996, for appreciating the case in proper perspective, is extracted as Order:
The Petitioner was already released on bail on conditions that he already appear before the Judicial Magistrate, Kovilpatti daily. But, thereafter on 10.10.96 he failed to observe the conditions. According to the counsel for Petitioner, on 10.10.96 he was arrested by the police in connection with some other case and therefore he absconded. But, it seems later on he filed a petition for anticipatory bail before the High Court and obtained anticipatory bail. When such is the position he ought to have filed a petition to condone his absence before this Court at least immediately after 10.10.96. But he has not done so. Only on 13.11.96 he had filed this petition. There is no justifiable reason for not filing any such petition before this Court in the meantime. In my opinion knowing that notice will be taken against him as he failed to observe the condition he never observed condition nor filed any petition before the Court earlier. If this sort of petition is allowed, then there will not be any respect to the Court. Therefore, I find no ground to condone the absence and hence, petition is dismissed. The bail order already granted is cancelled.
In the context of the above order, the averments made in the petition on behalf of the Petitioner without any reference to the provision of law, have been perused. In paragraph-4 of the petition, the circumstances which made the Petitioner/accused unable to fulfill the conditions were clearly explained. But, it is rather unfortunate to see that the learned trial Judge has clearly overlooked the above reasons and grounds to condone the delay in complying with the condition, and reasons as to why he did not either file a petition to condone the delay or comply with the condition. It is true, non-compliance of the conditions by the accused, if found wanton and deliberate, is a matter certainly to be taken note of and viewed with all seriousness by a Court of law. But, if it is found that beyond the reach of the Petitioner/accused the delay happened, then the Court below must take note of it and consider and consequently grant the relief requested. In the instant case, as I have already referred to, the circumstances pointed out by the accused for his lapse in complying with the condition for certain period, have not at all been considered by the learned trial Judge in the impugned order. He neither accepted, nor rejected the reasons, but simply overlooked and skipped the same without any consideration or discussion. In the circumstances, I am of the view that the very approach adopted by the learned Sessions Judge is not correct and on par with law.
Once bail is granted to the accused with or without conditions for compliance, it is deemed to be in furtherance of the statutory right granted to the accused by exercising the discretionary power of the Judge and if the Court wants to cancel the same, it should be done only under the provisions of law u/s 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and if such legal exercise is to be done, that would be possible only by giving notice to the accused and hearing the explanation of the accused for his absence or lapse as contemplated by the law as well as the principles of natural justice and no other mode to do so has been followed as prudent in this part of our country. Therefore, I do not find any reasons to accept the opinion expressed by the learned Sessions Judge while passing the impugned order. There was no say on behalf of the Public Prosecutor for the State controverting the above position of law. It is, under these circumstances, I feel, no hesitation to set aside the impugned order which is totally against the entire legal norms as well as on the factual scenario.
On having pursued the grounds and circumstances projected by the accused to condone the delay, I feel, they are worth to be taken note of and ought to have been accepted, but however, without doing so, it appears, the impugned order has been passed which is not at all correct, but erroneous.
In the result, for the reasonings given above, I set aside the impugned order and grant bail to the Petitioner herein on the same terms and conditions imposed on him, earlier, prior to the cancellation and the Petitioner is hereby directed to go and execute a bond with necessary sureties, as per the terms and conditions imposed already when he was originally released on bail, in accordance with law, before the trial Court. Accordingly, the petition is ordered. Consequently, Crl. M.P. 4026 of l996 is dismissed.