S. Karthigeyan vs State

P. Devadass, J.—Petition for extension of time to comply with the conditions imposed in the Anticipatory bail order passed in Crl.O.P.No. 11258 of 2011 on 11.5.2011.

2.This petition has been filed by A33 to enable him to surrender and execute the bail bond in pursuance of the anticipatory bail order of this Court stated supra.

Offences alleged are under sections 147, 148, 323 and 307 of IPC in Crime No. 1371 of 2008.

In 2008, an event that took place in front of Dr. Ambedkar Government Law College, Chennai rocked the City. In this connection, B2-Esplanade Police registered a case in Crime No. 1371 of 2008. In this case, petitioner has been cited as A33.

In Crl.O.P.No. 11258 of 2011, he sought for anticipatory bail. On 11.5.2011, this Court granted him anticipatory bail prescribing certain terms and conditions. It runs as follows;

�4. On consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made, this court is of the view that the petitioner can be granted the relief prayed for and accordingly;

(a) In the event of arrest by or on appearance before the respondent police;

(b) In the event of appearance before the learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order;

(i) the petitioner shall be enlarged on bail on his executing a bond for Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to their satisfaction;

(ii) the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any Police Officer; and

(iii) The petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 5.30 p.m. for two weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation."

[emphasis supplied by me]

Thus, as per paragraph 4 (b) supra, petitioner has to surrender himself before the learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai within 15 days of receipt of a copy of this bail order. The order copy was received long back. The 15 days was also over long back. Now, he seeks extension of time to furnish the bail bond.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that because the petitioner has shifted to Bangalore and now enjoying the hospitality of his mother-in-law and regularly attending the Courts there, he had forgotten this case and order, it is a bonafide mistake, now the petitioner is ready to participate in the judicial process, he is ready to execute the bail bond. Now in view of the expiry of time, he cannot furnish the bail bond before the learned Magistrate. In the circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he may be enable to execute the bail bond by extending the time limit.

The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the order has been passed under section 438 of Cr.P.C. It will have its force until it is set aside by a competent Court in a manner known to law. There shall not be any time limit to such bail orders. Courts can view such time extension request liberally unless there are special reasons.

The learned counsel for the petitioner cited the Constitution Bench Judgment in Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Others Vs. State of Punjab, and a Full Bench judgment of this court in Palanikumar and Another Vs State of Tamilnadu and others (2007(4) CTC 1) and submitted that these decisions also has similar spirit.

Learned Government Advocate (crl. side ) submitted that in connection with the Law College incident, a Writ Petition is pending before the Honourable Supreme Court of India. Prosecution has been directed to complete the investigation. Learned jurisdiction Magistrate also directed the police to complete the investigation and file the final report. Learned Magistrate also directed the Joint Commissioner, North Zone, Chennai to complete the investigation without further delay. Now out of the 41 accused, except the petitioner, some of them have got bail, some of them have got anticipatory bail. As on date, A33 has not executed the bail bond. Prosecution will not stand in the way of his executing the bail bond. In fact, it will enable the prosecution to complete its tasks without further delay.

I have anxiously considered the submissions of the both sides and perused the decisions cited at the bar.

As per the order dated 11.5.2011 of this court, petitioner has been granted anticipatory bail. As on date, it has not been cancelled in a manner known to law. But at the same time, in view of the prescription of the 15 days time limit in para 4 (b) of the order supra, now he cannot execute the bail bond.

In my view, para 4(a) which gives a direction for his release in the event of arrest is essential and vital aspect of the anticipatory bail order passed under section 438 of Cr.P.C. By extending the time limit, the anticipatory bail order dated 11.5.2011 can be activated and in doing so, nobody will be prejudiced.

In fact, if it is not extended, practical difficulties will arise. Since the anticipatory order has not been cancelled, police has difficulties to arrest him because there is a direction to release him on bail in the event of his arrest. Even, if he is arrested, difficulty will arise in remanding him because there is anticipatory bail order. Further, either before the Police or before the learned Magistrate, he cannot execute the bail bond because the 15 days time is over. Thus by not extending the time limit, anomalous situation and practicable difficulties will arise.

Let us not impose any self imposed limitation in a liberty order like anticipatory bail order passed under section 438 of Cr.P.C. Thus the Courts can be liberal in these time extension petitions unless there are some special reasons.

Now the petitioner came forward to participate in the judicial process . He gives some explanation for having not executed the bail bond all these days. Let us not waste our time by doing a research into that. Let us do some constructive work.

In the circumstances, as stated supra, let us activate this anticipatory bail order dated 11.5.2011 by giving some current.

There is a practice among the certain Courts in mentioning in the anticipatory bail order that in the event of not furnishing the bail bond within the prescribed time, the anticipatory bail order shall automatically stand cancelled. In my considered view this is not in accordance with law. In law, there is no automatic cancellation of bail or anticipatory bail order. They can be cancelled only in a manner known to law. Such an adverse order can be passed only after hearing a person likely to be affected by such an order. It is basic that '' no one shall be condemned unheard''. "Hear before condemn." It is basis of principles of Natural Justice. This "minimum (fair) justice" applies to bail matters also. It will prevent arbitrary decisions being taken. It will enhance the quality of the decision making process itself.

Bail orders are liberty orders. They cannot be lightly interfered with. There may be many reasons in non-executing the bail bonds in time. Some are beyond the control of the accused and lawyers. For instance, on the due date due to boycotting of the Courts, doors of Courts might be closed by Lawyers and others, there may be general hartal, road rokho, disruption of transportation, bus strike, deterioration of Law and Order situation in the area, lawyer or the litigant fell ill or some melancholy or happiest moments takes place in their personal life or even the accused had no money to spent to meet the consequent expenses. In such circumstances, accused not executing the bail bond in time arises. Therefore, there shall not be any prejudged, preconceived, unilateral, predetermined decision in the bail orders that they will stand automatically cancelled.

When the time expired, Courts can liberally consider the time extension petitions. By doing so, heaven is not going to fall on our heads. It is better to remind ourselves always that procedure is just handmaid of justice and not justice itself. Courts should always advance cause of justice, actually it is call of duty. Let us not confused or caught in a quagmire of unnecessary, self-imposed, invented procedure causing inconvenience to others.

Further, bail orders including orders granting anticipatory bail are all liberty orders. Bail orders, anticipatory bail orders always deals with personal liberty. Unless it is expressly taken away by a procedure established by law, personal right and personal freedom of a person cannot be taken away by any unreasonable, inequitable procedure (see Article 21 of Constitution of India and Mrs. Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another,

In view of the foregoings, as per the order of this Court dated 11.5.2011, petitioner shall surrender before the learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, George Town Chennai on or before 27.3.2015 and execute the bail bond in terms of the anticipatory bail orders of this Court dated 11.5.2011 passed in Crl.O.P.No. 11258 of 2011.

It is made clear that 27.3.2015 is the "D-day" for the petitioner to surrender, and no further extension of time will be entertained.

Accordingly, this petition is disposed of.