Uma Maheswari vs Inspector of Police

P. Devadass, J.—Uma Maheswari, the defacto complainant, seeks issuance of direction for making progress of the case in Cr. No. 212 of 2009 and also cancel the bail granted to the accused. Heard both sides.

Investigation completed and the case is pending in PRC stage in the committal Court. Accused was granted bail by the learned Sessions Judge. Thereafter, he did not attend the Court. So, there could not be any progress. The defacto complainant wants cancellation of bail granted to the accused.

It is a murder case. Investigation over. Final report filed. Cognizance taken. Accused is absconding.

The consideration for grant of bail and consideration for cancellation of bail are totally different. The Court will be fast in granting bail, provided the accused is eligible. But, the Court will be very slow in cancelling the bail, because it is withdrawing one''s liberty. The grounds for grant of bail and the grounds for cancellation of bail are different. There must be valid grounds to cancel the bail such as overawing the witnesses, interfering with the Course of Justice, intimidating the witnesses or fleeing away from justice or committing similar offences.

Thus, by mere abscondence, bail cannot be cancelled. There are express provision for cancelling the bail, either by the very Court which has granted bail, or by the next superior Court, Sessions Court and High Court. When such provisions are there Section 482 Cr.P.C. shall not be invoked.

A Court cannot direct the police to arrest a person. A Court cannot take the role of a Police Officer. Arrest is anti thesis of liberty. There shall not be mechanical arrest. Arrest only if need be, because the word used in Section 41 Cr.P.C. is not ''must'' but ''may''.

But, enforcing the attendance by executing the Non Bailable Warrant against the accused is a different matter. It is a direction for enforcing the attendance of the accused in the Court, because it is with a view to make progress in the case. If the accused is not present in the Court, there cannot be trial. There is no exparte disposal in criminal cases. There cannot be exparte conviction or sentence by a criminal Court. Every piece of evidence has to be recorded in the presence of the accused. There will be no trial behind the back of the accused.

Now, in this case, commission of serious offences have been alleged. The accused earned his liberty from the Court, namely, bail. But thereafter, he did not attend the Court. Non-Bailable Warrant has been issued. Court will not execute it. It is the duty of the police to execute it. As per Cr.P.C., N.B.Ws. are addressed to police officers only.

In the above circumstances, the Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur District, shall direct the respondent, namely, the Inspector of Police, Vallam Police Station, to execute the NBW and produce the accused before the Court. The learned Committal Magistrate shall also give direction to the respondent to execute the NBW. The respondent shall execute the NBW against the accused, within two months from today. With the above direction, this criminal original petition is disposed of.