Allowed

Prabhu Arun Kanna v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC22 Oct 2021CRL OP/19598/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court granted interim anticipatory bail petitioners accused of offences beyond Tamil Nadu's jurisdiction to appear in the competent court, relying on precedents regarding inter-state bail powers under Section 438 Cr.P.C. and Article 21, subject to personal bond and conditions.

What did the court decide?

Interim anticipatory bail granted till 10.12.2021, conditioned on execution of personal bond and appearance before the concerned court.

Prabhu Arun Kanna Vs the Inspector of Police — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Friday, the Twenty Second day of October Two Thousand Twenty One

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr Justice M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.19598 of 2021

¶7

1 PRABHU ARUN KANNA [ PETITIONERS / ACCUSED ]

¶8

2 MALARKODI 3 C.SWAMY 4 BHAGYALAKSHMAMMA

¶9

5 SENTHIL KUMAR 6 DEVI SUNAJA

¶10

¶11

1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE [ RESPONDENTS ] E-1, MYLAPORE POLICE STATION, MYLAPORE, CHENNAI-600 004.

¶12

2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, HENNUR POLICE STATION, BANASWADI SUB DIVISION, BENGALORE CITY.

¶13

3 G.ANITHA

¶14

For Petitioner : M/S.C.KANNAN Advocate

¶15

For Respondent : M/S.C.E.PRATAP, Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶16

PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C.

¶17

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶18

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence under Sections 498A of IPC, in Crime No.12 of 2021, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶19

The petitioners who have been accused of non-bailable offences committed beyond the territorial jurisdiction limit of the State of Tamil Nadu, have approached this Court for Anticipatory Bail, so as to enable them to approach the appropriate Court.

¶20

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶21

The case of the prosecution is that marriage of the 1st petitioner and the 3rd respondent/defacto complainant was performed in the year 2017. There was matrimonial dispute between them, due to which the defaco complainant lodged a complaint against the petitioners.

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that this is the second interstate anticipatory bail application. Earlier this court dismissed Crl.OP.No.16892 of 2021 on the ground that the summon has not been produced. He further submits that the summon was issued by the 2nd respondent in Crime No. 12 of 2021. He further submitted that this Court, in similar circumstances, has granted interim anticipatory bail to the accused to enable him seek appropriate Bail Orders from the concerned Court.

¶23

Heard the learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) appearing for the State.

¶24

The issue as to whether, in respect of the persons who have been accused of a non-bailable offence committed beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Tamil Nadu, if his arrest is sought within the jurisdiction of this Court, irrespective of the fact that he is a resident of the place over which this Court can grant anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C, came up for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in the case of S.P.Shanthi Swaroop v. State of Tamil Nadu , rep. By Asst. Commissioner of Police, Central Crime Branch, Madras reported in 1992 L.W.(Crl).475 . After elaborate discussions, decisions and considering the ratio laid down by the Patna High Court in Syed Safrul Hassan v. State has passed the following order:-

¶25

“For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the High Court or the Court of Session has got power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. To grant anticipatory bail irrespective of the locale of the Commission of the offence. In other words, in respect of persons who have been accused of a non-bailable offence committed beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Tamil Nadu, if their arrest is sought within the jurisdiction of this Court, irrespective of the fact that they are residents of the place over which this Court can grant anticipatory bail. However, we wish to observe that while granting anticipatory bail, this Court has to restrict the relief for a limited period and to direct the concerned persons to move the Court which is having jurisdiction over the matter in the meantime and also impose such condition so as to make the petitioners available for interrogation by the concerned police in the meantime. The reference is answered accordingly.”

¶26

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶27

Thereafter, a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of P.Thangavelu and others v. State, rep. By the Inspector of Police and other reported in 2017 (2) MWN (Cr.) 633 has passed the following orders,

¶28

“9.Thus , it is seen that though in the State of Uttar Pradesh, the provisions of Section 438, Cr.P.C., enabling grant of Anticipatory bail has been deleted, still the Courts have power to grant Inter-State Anticipatory Bail, more particularly taking into account the provisions under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In the light of the above Judgments and discussions, this Court is of the view that Inter-State Anticipatory Bail can be granted to the petitioners for a limited period to enable them seek appropriate Bail Orders from the concerned Court.

¶29

10.Accordingly, Interim Anticipatory Bail is granted to the Petitioners herein till 01.08.2016. The Petitioners are directed to be enlarged on Bail in the event of their arrest or on their appearance before the Judicial Magistrate concerned, subject to the following conditions:

¶30

(i) Each Petitioners shall execute a Personal Bond for a sum of Rs.10,000- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties, to the satisfaction of the Respondent-Police or the Police Officer, who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the Magistrate concerned;

¶31

(ii) within the said period, ie., before 01.08.2016, the petitioners shall appear before the concerned Court of Jurisdiction and move for Anticipatory Bail before the said Court.

¶32

11. This Court makes it very clear that Inerim Anticipatory Bail pertaining to Inter-State disputes cannot be sought as a matter of right and it is purely the discretion of the Court in granting the same, considering the facts, circumstances and also the nature of offences. It is also made clear that this order, on being produced, shall be punctually observed and executed by all concerned.”

¶33

In view of the decisions cited supra, I am inclined to grant interim anticipatory bail to the petitioners till 10.12.2021. Accordingly, interim anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioners till 10.12.2021. The petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance before the first respondent police and on further condition that:

¶34

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶35

(i) the Petitioners shall execute a Personal Bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties, to the satisfaction of the Respondent-Police or the Police Officer, who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the Magistrate concerned;

¶36

(ii) within the said period, i.e., before 04.04.2019 the petitioners shall appear before the concerned Court of Jurisdiction and file an appropriate application for regular bail before the said Court.

¶37

-sd/-

¶38

22/10/2021

¶39

This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned

¶40

TRUE COPY

¶41

Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104. TO

¶42

1 THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, NO.18, SAIDAPET, CHENNAI.