Dismissed

Rajaram, v. State Rep.by Inspector of

Madras HC8 Apr 2014CRL OP(MD)/1798/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of a Crl.O.P. seeking to set aside an order for further investigation. The Court doubted precedents granting Magistrates such power but refused to interfere, holding the investigation order valid. It clarified that bail holders cannot be re-arrested without specific provisions.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Original Petition is disposed of; no relief granted to the petitioners.

Rajaram, Vs State Rep.by Inspector of — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 08.04.2014

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE G.M.AKBAR ALI

¶5

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1798 of 2014

1.Rajaram

2.Mutharasu

3.Senthamarai

4.Annamalai ... Petitioners

¶10

Vs.

¶11

State rep.by The Inspector of Police, Thiruthangal Police Station, Virudhunagar District. ... Respondent

¶12

PRAYER : Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records and set aside the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Sivakasi in C.C.No.181 of 2009 dated 28.11.2013 in directing the respondent to conduct further investigation.

¶13

For Petitioners : Mr.G.Marimuthu For Respondent : Mr.A.P.Balasubramani, Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondent.

¶16

2.The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to set aside the proceedings in C.C.No.181 of 2009 dated 28.11.2013 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Sivakasi.

¶17

3.Initially a case has been registered in Crime No.181 of 2009 against the petitioners. The case of the prosecution is that Selvam @ Palani Selvam was kidnapped and detained illegally by the petitioner and on a particular day the said Selvam has been detained in a lodge. In order to escape from the petitioner, the said Selvam jumped from the upstairs of the lodge and sustained multiple injuries. The father of the said Selvam was arrayed as P.W.1. The father of the victim was also examined. At that time, the learned Magistrate has discussed the case reported in 1985(2) SCC 537 (Bagavath Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police and another)

¶18

and CDJ 2012 SC 897 (Vijay Tyagi Vs. Ishadali @ Deepak and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ others) . The learned Judge though it fit further investigation and ordered so. Aggrieved by which, the present Criminal Original Petition has been filed.

¶19

¶20

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner would fairly conceded that in 2013(5) SCC 762 the Supreme Court has doubted the finding in Reeta Nag case reported in 2009(3) SCC (Crl.) 1051.

¶21

5.Though in Reeta Nag case the Supreme Court has stated that

¶22

the Judicial Magistrate has no power to order further investigation and the decision in Bagavath Singh case the Supreme Court doubted the correctness has found that the Judicial Magistrate has power to order further investigation. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate.

¶23

6.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent is also insisting upon the petitioners to obtain such a anticipatory bail. The learned counsel relied on a decision reported in 2010(3) MLJ (Crl.) 35 (Dhivan V. State Rep.The Inspector of Police, Cuddalore District ) where a similar question has been raised whether the police has got power to re-arrest the petitioners when they are enjoying the benefit of order of bail already obtained. After analysing various case laws, this Court is of the view that simply because a penal provision is added in those case. Therefore, it is made clear that there is no provision to re-arrest the petitioners, who are enjoying the bail and it is for the respondent to act as per the direction of the learned Judicial Magistrate for further investigation.

¶24

7.With the above observation the Criminal Original petition is disposed of.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

Assistant Registrar(T & P)

¶27

/True Copy/

¶28

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶29

¶30