P. Rameshkumar vs State

P. Devadass, J.—Petition for bail. Offences alleged are under Sections 406, 420 and 468 of IPC.

According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the Principal Sessions Judge while granting bail, tied a damocles sword on the head of the accused, namely, pay Rs. 5 lakhs within 45 days, otherwise come back to jail. Such a condition cannot be imposed in a bail order.

The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the bail order has been cancelled behind the back of the petitioners/accused and before canceling the bail no opportunity as to why it should not be cancelled has not been given to the accused. Thus, the order of cancellation of bail is as against law, and detaining the petitioners in pursuant to such an order is illegal.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the intervener would submit that the petitioners had agreed to deposit Rs. 5 lakhs. They did not pay, so, they have to come back to jail. That is how they are is in jail.

The learned Government Advocate(Cri. side) submitted that what the learned counsel for the intervener submitted is correct.

I have considered the rival submissions and perused the case records.

Petitioners are accused of having committed criminal breach of trust (Section 406 IPC), and also cheated the defacto complainant(Section 420 IPC). In Crl.M.P. No. 10760 of 2012, on 07.11.2012, the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai granted them bail with a condition that they should deposit Rs. 5 lakhs within 45 days from the date of their release, failing which the bail order shall stand cancelled automatically.

Admittedly, petitioners did not deposit the amount. In the circumstances, one of the victim of the crime has filed Crl.M.P. No. 7903 of 2013 to cancel the bail.

On 24.7.2013, after hearing the said victim and the prosecution, the learned Principal Sessions Judge cancelled the bail and directed the police to arrest them. Accordingly, they were arrested and recommitted to jail. In these circumstances, they seeks bail.

Bail orders are liberty orders. They are in the nature of securing freedom, liberty, which has been lost by a judicial (reward) order. It can be withdrawn only in a manner known to law. Principle of natural justice are part of administration of law. Criminal law is not an exception to that. ''Hear before condemn'',-hear before cancel the bail applies to criminal procedure also.

Now, in this case, petitioners have been granted bail with certain conditions. There may be many reasons for their non compliance. The Court has to hear them and then decide. Before cancelling the bail, certainly opportunity must be given to the accused.

In this case, behind the back of the petitioners, the bail order has been cancelled. Without giving any opportunity, the petitioners have been sent to jail. This is totally against law. Now, they are in jail in pursuance of such an order passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai. In the circumstances, this court is bound to interfere. In view of the foregoings, ordered as under:-

(i) Bail granted to the petitioners;

(ii) They shall execute their own bond for Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the learned XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai-8.

(iii) Bail cancellation order of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai passed in Crl.M.P. No. 7903 of 2013 on 24.7.2013 is set aside.

(iv) The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai will restore the said Crl.M.P. No. 7903 of 2013 to file.

(v) The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai will decide the said Crl.M.P. No. 7903 of 2013 on merits after giving reasonable opportunity to both sides including the accused.