S. Martin vs The Deputy Commissioner of Police

The appellant herein has been arrayed as accused in Crime No. 304 of 2012 on the file of 3rd respondent herein for the offences alleged u/s 294(A), 420 and 120-B IPC. The appellant moved for anticipatory bail in Crl. M.P. No. 22283 of 2012. An application in M.P. No. 1 of 2012 was filed by respondent No. 3 herein seeking to cancel the anticipatory bail granted. The appellant filed M.P. No. 2 of 2013 seeking to modify the condition imposed. Considering the above said applications, by order dated 8.3.2013 the earlier anticipatory bail granted to the appellant was cancelled.

Aggrieved against the order passed, the appellant moved the Honourable Supreme Court. In S.L.P (Crl) Nos. 3131 to 3133 of 2013, the Supreme Court in and by order dated 22.4.2013 dismissed the Special Leave Petitions. The appellant thereafter filed a regular application for bail. The Judicial Magistrate''s Court, Alandur granted bail in Crl. M.P. No. 9106 of 2013 by order dated 30.9.2013. By the orders passed in Crl. O.P. No. 26841 of 2013 dated 18.10.2013, the condition imposed earlier for granting bail was relaxed.

In the meanwhile, on 6.10.2012, a Look Out circular was issued against the appellant for one year. The appellant approached this Court and obtained an order to the effect that the final report shall not be filed. The quash petition filed by the appellant is still pending consideration before this Court.

At this stage, the appellant filed a writ petition before the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 32317 of 2012 seeking a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to withdraw the look out circular issued against him. The learned single Judge was pleased to dismiss the writ petition with certain observations. Challenging the same, the present appeal has been filed before us.

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the question of continuation of look out circular against the appellant no longer survives in view of the bail granted. The appellant was admittedly arrested and the investigation on him was over. The Circular issued has not been extended. In any case, there is no necessity for the continuation circular on paper in view of the subsequent events. Therefore, the order passed by the learned single Judge will have to be set aside and the prayer sought for in the writ petition will have to be allowed.

Learned Public Prosecutor based upon the status report submitted that as the appellant was not cooperating the anticipatory bail granted was cancelled. Considering the nature of the allegations, this Court shall not grant the relief sought for. The petition filed by the wife of the appellant before the Magistrate''s Court for removing the look out circular was dismissed. The look out circular was required to be renewed as per the letter dated 16.12.2013. The appellant was seen travelling to Calcutta very often. That is the reason why the look out circular was issued. In any case, the appellant will have to get proper permission before leaving the jurisdiction of the Investigating Officer. Learned counsel submitted that the writ appeal will have to be dismissed.

Learned Judicial Magistrate, Alandur in Crl. M.P. No. 9106 of 2013 dated 30.9.2013 has passed the following order:

Secondly the counsel for the petitioner contends that the FIR averments are incontra and inconsistent to the confession statements and to substantiate his contention that it is a false case that the money is accountable one refers to the averments in the FIR as to the implication of the accused and the confessions of the co-accused recorded. As per the FIR it is alleged that A1 and A3 along with the petitioner A2 have printed lottery tickets in Calcutta and Faridabad and sold in various States including Chennai also. But, as per the first confession recorded on 12.3.12 there is no statements as to printing lottery tickets further as per 2nd confession recorded on 15.2.12 the tickets were sold by A1 at his office in his house at Chennai. Hence the contention of the petitioner counsel is acceptable. Further as per the alteration report the documents have been fabricated to account for illegal money and refers about a unregistered sale agreement but as per the recitals of sale deed the agreement of sale has been referred and the sale deed is also registered one. Further the petitioner has produced the document as to the source of income, IT returns as to the sale consideration amount. Above all the facts the perusal of records the Honourable High Court by Order dated 24.05.13 has stayed the filing of final report hence the contention of the APP that investigation is still pending is not acceptable since proceedings has been stayed the fact when the investigation will further proceed is not ascertainable. It is also obvious to note that the co-accused were released on bail on the observation that the amount recovered from A1 is an accounted money. In view of the above reasons, this Court is inclined to grant bail....

The order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alandur has become final. The condition imposed therein were also relaxed. Therefore, based upon which the earlier look out circular was issued no longer survives. The said period is also over as of now. It is not the case of the respondents that the appellant is not traceable. The object of the look out circular is to apprehend an accused, who is evading arrest or not appear in trial Court despite issuance of non-bailable warrant. There is no material to hold that the appellant would evade trial at this stage. Furthermore, the trial is yet to begin. Therefore, considering the above said facts, we are of the view that the respondents 1 and 2 will have to be directed to withdraw the look out circular issued against the appellant. However, considering the submission made by the learned Public Prosecutor, we make it clear that if the appellant wishes to go out of the State to either any other part of the country or abroad, a prior intimation will have to be given to the Investigating Officer. The appellant will have to furnish the required particulars such as place, he proposes to visit, its address and the contract phone numbers.

Accordingly, the writ appeal stands disposed of in the above said terms. Consequently, the order passed by the learned single Judge is set aside. We also make it clear that this order will have to be construed to apply till the stage of filing of the final report. Therefore, in the event of the appellant having found not cooperating with the conduct of the trial after filing of the final report, if any, then it is open to the respondents to proceed in accordance with law. We also direct the appellant to cooperate with the further investigation, if any, by respondent to the call of the Investing Officer in this regard at the earliest. However, there is no order as to costs.