R. Lawrence, R. Antony Vincent and R. Suman vs The State

R.S. Ramanathan, J.—This petition is filed seeking for a direction, directing the learned Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel to accept the bail petition

filed by the Petitioners'' parents.

Mr. V. Kathivelu, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners submitted that the Petitioners are the accused Nos. 1, 5 and 6 in Crime

No. 100 of 2011 on the file of the Eraniel Police Station and the defacto complainant is a practising advocate at Kanyakumari. He further

submitted that whenever a complainant is an advocate, no advocate will appear for the accused persons in Kanyakumari District and therefore, the

mother of the accused Nos. A1 and A5 have filed bail application in Crime No. 100 of 2011 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel, for

A1 and A5 viz., the Petitioners 1 and 2 and the father of the 3rd Petitioner viz., A6 filed bail application in the same crime number and the learned

Judicial Magistrate without entertaining the applications, returned the same with the endorsement that the Petitioners have to be identified by the

advocates. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that when the advocates refused to appear for the Petitioners, it is not possible for the

Petitioners to get identification done by the advocates at kanyakumari and by reason of the return made by the learned Judicial Magistrate, the right

to freedom and liberty of the Petitioners are affected and the Petitioners are not able to move bail application before the Court and by the pedantic

approach of the learned Judicial Magistrate, the Petitioners are in custody from 19.03.2011 and therefore, suitable direction may be given to the

learned Magistrate.

It is seen from the application filed by the Petitioners that the Petitioners were arrested for offence under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323,

379(NP) and 506(ii) I.P.C. and they are in custody from 19.03.2011. It is also seen from the petition filed before this Court that the defacto

complainant is a practising advocate at Kanyakumari and therefore, no advocate is prepared to appear for the Petitioners and that was the reason

for the Petitioners to file bail applications through their mother and father respectively as stated above. As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior

Counsel, the liberty and freedom of the Petitioners are affected by denying the right to move the Court by imposing such irrelevant conditions.

Learned Magistrate must be aware that in Kanyakumari District, whenever a defacto complainant or a complainant is an advocate, no advocate is

appearing for the accused persons and even advocates from other Districts are not normally permitted to appear on behalf of the accused.

In such circumstances, the learned Magistrate ought to have taken a practical approach and ought to have entertained the application filed by the

parents of the Petitioners and ought not to have returned the papers by directing them to be identified by the advocates. If the learned Magistrate

has got any doubt about the relationship of the persons, who filed the bail applications, he would have insisted the Petitioners to produce the proof

for the same and ought not to have directed the Petitioners to get identified themselves by an advocate, who are against the Petitioners.

Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the learned Judicial Magistrate is directed to take the bail application on file if it is otherwise in order

and on being satisfied with the persons that they are the relations of the Petitioners by blood and on production of such proof, the learned Judicial

Magistrate is directed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

This criminal original petition is ordered accordingly. The Registry is directed to return the original papers to the learned Counsel appearing for

the Petitioners.