High Court set aside Sessions Judge's order denying benefit of anticipatory bail. Held judge lacked authority to review grant under Section 362 Cr.P.C. Bail granted to person remains in force unless cancelled.
Annexure-A2 order denying entitlement to anticipatory bail is set aside; Annexure-A1 bail order remains in force.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI
MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 20TH KARTHIKA, 1941
Crl.MC.No.4955 OF 2019(H)
AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRL.M.P.NO.1318/2019 IN CRMC 975/2019 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
CRIME NO.264/2019 OF Palode Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram
PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED:
KRISHNAPRASAD AGED 25 YEARS S/O. APPUKUTTAN, PULIMOOTTIL VEEDU, KURAVANKONAM, NANNIYODE, PACHA P.O., PALODE, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DT
BY ADV. SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN
RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PALODE POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 562
SRI.M.S.BREEZ SR.PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04.11.2019, THE COURT ON 11.11.2019 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.4955/2019
2
R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, J
Crl.M.C.No.4955 of 2019
Dated this the 11th day of November, 2019
O R D E R
The petitioner is an accused in the case registered as Crime No.264/2019 of Palode police station under Sections 294(b), 307, 323 and 506(ii) read with 34 I.P.C.
Crl.M.C.No.975/2019 under Section 438 Cr.P.C before the Court of Session, Thiruvananthapuram seeking anticipatory bail in the case. The Sessions Court considered the application made by the petitioner along with the application filed by another accused by name Mahesh Mon and passed Annexure-A1 common order granting anticipatory bail to both accused on certain conditions.
3
Crl.M.C.No.4955/2019
case and unless he obtained an order from the court correcting the status in the bail order, he shall not be given the benefit of Annexure-A1 order. In this context, it is to be noted that the petitioner had filed the application for anticipatory bail as the third accused in the case. Therefore, the petitioner filed an application as Crl.M.P.No.1318/2019 in the Court of Session for correcting his rank in the order granting bail to him. As per Annexure-A2 order, the learned Sessions Judge not only dismissed the aforesaid application filed by the petitioner but also held that the petitioner is the first accused in the case and he is not entitled to get anticipatory bail. Annexure-A2 order is challenged in this petition.
reasons. In the first place, the application made by the petitioner before the Court of Session was only for correction of the rank in Annexure-A1 order. As the rank of the accused could
not be corrected in the order, the learned Sessions Judge was
4
Crl.M.C.No.4955/2019
justified in rejecting the prayer in that regard. However, learned Sessions Judge had no authority to hold that the petitioner was not entitled for the anticipatory bail granted to him pursuant to Annexure-A1 order. By holding so, the learned Sessions Judge has reviewed/corrected Annexure-A1 order for which he had no power or authority. Section 362 Cr.P.C makes it clear that no court, when it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case, shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error. Annexure-A2 order passed by the learned Sessions Judge amounts to review of Annexure-A1 order passed by him.
Crl.M.C.No.4955/2019
5
the appropriate court for cancellation of the bail. Once bail is granted to a particular person by the court, the investigating officer cannot refuse to accept or recognise the order passed by the court, on the ground that his rank as an accused in the case is different. If the investigating officer refused to accept Annexure-A1 order passed by the Court of Session, the petitioner should have taken appropriate legal action against him. Learned Sessions Judge was justified in rejecting the prayer for correcting the rank of the petitioner in Annexure-A1 order. At the same time, learned Sessions Judge was not justified in holding that the petitioner is not entitled to get the benefit of Annexure-A1 order.
Crl.M.C.No.4955/2019
6
steps for cancellation of the bail.
The petition is disposed of as above.
(sd/-)
R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, JUDGE
jsr/08/11/2019
Crl.M.C.No.4955/2019
7
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE-A1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 04.06.2019 IN CRL.M.C. NOS 943/2019 AND 975/21019 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
ANNEXURE-A2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.M.P.NO.1318/2019 IN CRL.M.C.975/2019 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL
TRUE COPY
PS TO JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Sessions Judge was justified in holding that the petitioner was not entitled to anticipatory bail granted in a preceding order.
Whether the Sessions Judge had authority to review an order granting anticipatory bail under Section 362 Cr.P.C.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Krishnaprasad
State of Kerala
R. Narayana Pisharadi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
