State vs G.K. Mani and Others

P. Devadass, J.—This petition has been filed by the prosecution to cancel the bail granted by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Villupuram in Crl.M.P. No. 2726 of 2013 on 3.5.2013. In view of the then prevailing situation in Villupuram Sub Divisional area, on 16.4.2013, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Villupuram promulgated an order u/s 30(2) of the Indian Police Act prohibiting procession etc., in the sub-division up to 30.4.2013.

On 29.4.2013, the District Secretary, P.M.K. party, Villupuram Town requested the Inspector of Police, Villupuram to accord permission to hold a dharna on 30.4.2013, at 11 a.m., near the Railway ground in Villupuram under the leadership of Dr. Ramadoss, Founder-President of their party. On 29.4.2013, D.S.P. Villupuram, accorded permission imposing several conditions. The P.M.K. party high command issued directions to its cadres to gather at the venue site on the said date. Accordingly, the party functionaries swung into action. However, in the meanwhile, DSP, Villupuram, cancelled his permission by a subsequent order passed on the same date. However, as scheduled, the P.M.K. party cadres gathered in large numbers at the said place on 30.4.2014.

On account of this, the Villupuram Town Police registered a case in Crime No. 400 of 2013 for offences under Sections 143, 188 of IPC r/w. 7(1)(a) of Criminal Law Amendment Act. Pending Investigation, Dr. Ramadoss and his followers, who are respondents herein were arrested and were remanded to judicial custody.

In Crl.M.P. No. 2726 of 2013, the respondents sought bail from the learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Villupuram. Their bail application came up for hearing on 3.5.2013. On 3.5.2013, the learned Judicial Magistrate granted them bail., ordering each to furnish a cash surety of Rs. 1000/- and also directed them not to indulge in any kind of activities which will disturb the public peace and harmony in the society.

Now, the said bail order is sought to be cancelled by the prosecution.

According to the learned Public Prosecutor, before passing the bail order, the learned Magistrate has not given opportunity to the prosecution to air its views. Further, the learned Magistrate has not considered the seriousness of the matter and mechanically granted them bail. Thus, the bail order suffers from infirmity. Thus, it requires to be cancelled. In support of his submissions, the learned Public Prosecutor cited Subodh Kumar Yadav Vs. State of Bihar and Another, .

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that on 29.4.2013 prior permission was obtained by the organizers for the dharna to be held on 30.4.2013, at 11 a.m. Elaborate arrangements ensuring peaceful conducting of the dharna has been made. Party cadres started pouring in near the venue site from various places. Without any opportunity, any notice, the DSP, Villupuram suddenly cancelled the permission already granted. It could not be made known to the party cadres who have already started gathering at the permitted place. They voiced their grievance as against the discriminative attitude of the Government on certain issues towards their men. The party cadres observed absolute restraint and restriction ensuring peaceful demonstration. No untoward incident had occurred.

The learned counsel for the respondents further contended that the learned Magistrate gave sufficient opportunity to the prosecution. Notice of the bail petition also has been given. The Assistant Public Prosecutor represented the prosecution. The offences alleged against them are simple, routine in nature and are also less serious. However, with the sole aim of prolonging the incarceration of the respondents, prosecution started playing hide and seek. The Assistant Public Prosecutor wanted a long rope from the court to prolong the hearing of the bail petition under the pretax that the investigation officer has gone to Chennai. The court noticing that persons are in jail, heard the matter, referred to the materials produced by the prosecution and granted them bail with condition. The learned Magistrate applied his judicial mind in passing the said order. It does not suffer from any legal infirmity. It was passed in accordance with law. The decision cited is not applicable to the facts of this case.

I have anxiously considered the rival submissions, perused the materials on record and the decision cited.

What the prosecution wants is recalling of the bail order. In other words, setting aside the release order.

Arrest is anti-thesis of civil liberty. It is antonym to curtailment of one''s liberty. It results in one''s incarceration either, police or judicial. It is Jail v. Bail. It is individual liberty v. Interest of the case/prosecution/state/society. A harmonious construction of these two extremes have to be struck. Bail orders are ''liberty orders''. These orders interdicts one''s liberty guaranteed under Article, 21, Constitution of India.

Courts will be haste in granting bail provided the accused is entitled to it. Necessarily, it must be very slow in cancelling the bail/liberty order. Because its consequence will be an onslaught on one''s liberty. In other words, sending him back to jail. That is how, it is rightly said that the consideration for the grant of bail and consideration for the cancellation of bail are totally different.

Now, in this case, the bail order dated 3.5.2013 has been attacked on twin grounds. One, no hearing was given to the prosecution. The other one is merit aspect of the matter.

The respondents were remanded to judicial custody on 30.4.2013. They have moved for bail. Notice of bail petition was also given to the prosecution. The Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of the case was present through out. On 3.5.2013, when the bail application was taken up for consideration, he sought for time till 6.5.2013, since the investigation officer has gone to High Court, although, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has knowledge of the case and has gone through the case records. He can very well represent the prosecution. Since the persons are inside the jail, the Court heard the matter and passed the bail order. In this view of the matter, prosecution cannot be heard to say that they have not been heard and no opportunity was given to them.

When the bail application was taken up for consideration, by the time the learned Magistrate was in possession of the FIR, remand report and the connected documents. Perusing to these basic case records, the learned Magistrate applied his judicial mind and passed the bail order.

In Subodh Kumar (supra), the Hon''ble Apex Court held that while granting bail, if the court had taken into account irrelevant matters, it may be a ground for cancelling the bail.

In the case before us, it is not the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor that the learned Magistrate has taken into account irrelevant consideration, materials in granting them bail. So, the decision cited is not relevant to the present case.

It is pertinent here to note that though on the same day on 3.5.2013, in Crl.M.P. No. 2727 of 2013, Dr. Ramadoss, Founder-President of the P.M.K. party was granted bail under similar circumstances and in Crl.O.P. No. 12010 of 2013, prosecution sought for cancelling the bail on similar grounds as before us and similar arguments as before us was placed by the prosecution, on 20.2.2014, a learned Single Judge of this Court refield the contention and upheld the bail order of the learned Magistrate.

In this perspective of the matter there is no weighty or plausible reason or basis here to cancel the bail granted to the respondents in Crl.M.P. No. 2726 of 2013 on 3.5.2013 and prosecution cannot be heard to say that the bail order has been passed by the learned Magistrate mechanically without applying his judicial mind.

In view of the foregoing, the bail order of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Villupuram passed in Crl.M.P. No. 2726 of 2013 on 3.5.2013 is not liable to be cancelled. Accordingly, this Criminal Original petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed.