- DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24th February, 2021.
- JUDGES: K. Murali Shankar.
- PARTIES: Stella Mary (Plaintiff) and The State and Anr (Respondent)
SUMMARY
The following judgment deals with the provisions regarding bail and the procedure for cancellation of said bail.
OVERVIEW
1. The second respondent/de-facto complainant lodged a complaint with the Deputy Superintendent of Police, and on transfer of the said complaint to the first respondent police, F.I.R., came to be registered against the petitioner/accused for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC.
2. After registration of FIR, the petitioner/accused has approached the jurisdictional Magistrate Court, seeking bail. The Magistrate, after hearing both sides, has passed an order granting bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.
3. Aggrieved by the order granting of bail, the second respondent/de-facto complainant has filed an application under Section 439 (2) of Criminal Procedure Code before the Principal District Court for setting aside the bail order granted to the accused and that the principal District Judge after enquiry, has passed the impugned order cancelling the bail granted to the petitioner/accused.
4. Not satisfying with the cancellation of bail order, the accused has come forward with the present revision filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Criminal Procedure Code.
ISSUES
The following was the issue analyzed by the Madras High Court:
• Whether the impugned order passed by the judge of the principal district court is liable to be set aside.
• Whether a criminal court, exercising jurisdiction to grant bail/anticipatory bail, can act as a recovery agent to realize the dues of the complainant.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
• Art. 21 of the Constitution: Right to life and personal liberty.
• Sec. 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: Calling for records to exercise powers of revision.
• Sec. 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: High Court’s power of revisions.
• Sec. 439 (2) of Criminal Procedure Code: Special powers of High Court or Court of Session regarding bail.
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGMENT
1. The main contention of the de-facto complainant/respondent before the Principal District Court is that the Magistrate has not directed the accused to deposit any portion of the amount that was allegedly cheated by her and that she imposed only the usual and ordinary conditions.
2. The District Judge, mainly on the ground that bail was granted without any condition to deposit the amount involved, has passed the impugned order cancelling the bail.
3. The de-facto complainant/respondent quoted the judgment given by the Supreme Court in the case of Dilip Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh1
4. In the above decision, the criminal appeal was filed against the order of the High Court granting anticipatory bail, subject to the condition of deposit of Rs.41,00,000/- in Court and upon furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer.
5. The court, in the above judgment, held that by imposing the condition of deposit of Rs. 41 lakhs, the High Court has, in an application for prearrest bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, virtually issued directions in the nature of recovery in a civil suit.
6. The court, furthermore, held that criminal proceedings are not for realization of disputed dues. It is open to a court to grant or refuse the prayer for anticipatory bail, depending on the facts and circumstances of the particular case. The court further held that a criminal court, exercising jurisdiction to grant bail/anticipatory bail, is not expected to act as a recovery agent to realize the dues of the complainant, and that too, without any trial.
7. The court took cognizance of the decision given by the principal District court and upheld the decision given by the court.
CONCLUSION
The crux of the case is the provisions regarding bail and whether or not a criminal court exercising jurisdiction to grant bail/anticipatory bail, can act as a recovery agent to realize the dues of the complainant. The High Court, in the present case, has stated that the criminal court cannot do so.
The court made it explicitly clear that criminal courts cannot issue directions in the nature of recovery in a civil suit and use the jurisdiction to grant bail in order to facilitate said directions. The court took into cognizance the provisions of Art. 21 of the Constitution. It stated that liberty is not an absolute abstract concept and the same has to be governed by law. It is settled law that cancellation of bail should not be done in a routine manner and that the bail once granted, should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner.
Therefore, a conclusion can be arrived by taking into consideration the fact that bail can be cancelled by resorting to in the two situations and the first situation is that granting of bail being perverse, passed without due application of mind or in violation of any substantive or procedural law and in the second category, can be cancelled on the ground of misuse of liberty after the grant of bail or other supervening circumstances.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgment
