Petitioner, as defacto complainant, prayed to cancel bail granted to respondents under condition to stay in Chennai and not abscond. Convers condition was not complied with as accused absconded and notices returned unserved. Court cancelled the bail.
The bail granted to respondents 2 and 3 by this Court on 08.03.2018 was cancelled.
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 JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
( Criminal Jurisdiction )
Wednesday, the Tenth day of July Two Thousand Nineteen
PRESENT
The Hon`ble Mr Justice A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.5056 of 2019 IN CRL.OP.NO.3345/2018
ATTICA GOLD COMPANY PVT LTD [ PETITIONER / INTERVENER REP. BY G.RANJITH KUMAR, IN CRL.OP.NO.5056/2019]
Vs
1 THE STATE REP. BY [ RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT
THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, IN CRL.OP.NO.5056/2019 IN CRL.OP.3345/2018] R-4, SUNDARA PANDIAN ANGADI POLICE STATION, CHENNAI-600 017.
(CR.NO.1386 OF 2017)
2 PRAMOTH YADAV [ PETITIONERS/ACCCUSED 3 JAYANTHI YADAV IN CRL.OP.NO.3345/2018]
IN CRL.OP.NO.5056/2019]
Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein the High Court will be pleased to
[I]cancel the bail order in Crl.O.p.No.3345 of 2018 dated 8.3.2018 by this Hon’ble court and thus render justice. [CRL.OP.NO.5056/2019]
[II]enlarge the petitioners on bail pending investigation in Cr.No.1386 of 2017 on the file of respondent police. [crl.op.no.3345/2018]
Order : This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition and upon hearing the arguments of M/S.P.MUTHAMIZH SELVAKUMAR Advocate for the petitioner[in CRL.OP.NO.5056/2019] and of MR.K.PRABAKAR Additional public Prosecutor for [r-1] and [IN MR.R.KRISHNA KUMAR Advocate for Intervener on behalf of the Respondent the court made the following order:-
This petition has been filed by the petitioner/intervenor/defacto complainant, seeking to cancel the bail granted by this Court on 08.03.2018 to the respondents 2 and 3 herein in Crl.OP.No.3345/2018.
2. The petitioner / intervenor is the Defacto Complainant. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defacto complainant would submit that this Court, by order dated 08.03.2018 granted bail https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ to the respondents 2 and 3 who have been arrayed as A-5 and A-6 in
Crime No.1386 of 2017 dated 06.09.2017. He would further submit that this Court, while granting bail, imposed conditions that the petitioners shall stay at Chennai and report before the learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai at 10.30 a.m. on all working days and also to report before the respondent police on every Saturday and Sunday at 10.30 a.m. until further orders and also imposed a condition that the respondents 2 and 3/A-5 and A-6 shall not abscond either during investigation or trial. Learned counsel would submit that the respondents 2 and 3/A-5 and A-6 complied with the said conditions only for few days and thereafter, they did not comply with the said conditions. He would further submit that the 1st respondent police had completed the investigation and filed a final report before the learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai and the case is taken on file in C.C.No.8822/2017 and the Trial Court also issued summons to them for appearance. The accused have failed to comply with the conditions and also have absconded. The notice sent by the Trial Court is also returned un-served that stating that the respondents 2 and 3 / A-5 and A-6 are not residing in the address mentioned in the bail bond and other documents. It is submitted that because of the abscondance of the respondents 2 and 3/A-5 and A-6, there is no progress in the case and hence, would pray that the bail granted to the respondents 2 and 3, may be cancelled.
3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the respondents 2 and 3 / A-5 and A-6 are residents of Uttar Pradesh and that since summons sent to them have been returned unserved, the learned Trial Judge has also issued Non-Bailable Warrant against them, which is pending. He would further submit that after coming out a bail, the respondents 2 and 3/A-5 and A-6 have absconded.
4. It is seen that the notice sent through the Registry to the High Court of Allahabad, has been returned stating that time has lapsed and this Court also directed the petitioner / intervenor to take private notice and the same has been returned stating that ''no such persons''. The learned counsel for the petitioner/intervenor would submit that the notice has been specifically taken to the address mentioned in the bail application.
5. The Court heard the submissions made on either side and also perused the materials placed before it.
6. This Court while granting bail to the respondents 2 and 3 / A- 5 and A-6, on 08.03.2018 in Crl.OP.No.3345/2018, had imposed the following conditions in paragraph No.7:-
a) The petitioners shall stay at Chennai and report before the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai at 10.30 a.m. On all working days and also report before the respondent police on every Saturday and Sunday at 10.30 a.m. Until further orders.
7. Now the respondents 2 and 3 / A-5 and A-6 have absconded and that having also not appeared before this Court despite notice being duly served on their residential address, it is clear that the respondents 2 and 3 / A-5 and A-6 have not complied with the conditions imposed by this Court, while granting bail to them.
8. Hence, the petition seeking cancellation of bail is ordered and the bail granted to the respondents 2 and 3 / A-5 and A-6 by this Court on 08.03.2018 in Crl.OP.No.3345/2018 stands cancelled.
-sd/10/07/2019 This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned
TRUE COPY Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104. TO 1 THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, XVII,SAIDAPET,CHENNAI
2 THE CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,EGMORE[FOR INFORMATION] 3 THE SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL PRISON FOR WOMEN, PUZHAL 4 THE OFFICER INCHARGE SUB-JAIL,SAIDAPET
5 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, R-4, SUNDARA PANDIAN ANGADI POLICE STATION, CHENNAI-600 017.
6 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.
CC to M/S.P.MUTHAMIZH SELVAKUMAR Advocate on payment of necessary charges
CRL OP.5056/2019 IN CRL.OP.NO.3345/2018 Date :10/07/2019 RD 22/07/2019
1 issue framed by the court
Whether bail granted to respondents can be cancelled due to their failure to comply with bail conditions and absconding.
ATTICA GOLD COMPANY PVT LTD
PRAMOTH YADAV
JAYANTHI YADAV
THE STATE
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
