The High Court dismissed a Criminal Original Petition challenging an order cancelling bail. The bail was revoked because the accused failed to appear as directed and did not pay a directed amount to the defacto complainant.
Crl.O.P. dismissed; Respondents directed to take Petitioner into custody.
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.
Crl.O.P.No.3020 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21.11.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
Crl.O.P.No. 3020 of 2023
K.Ravi Kumar
...Petitioner / Accused
Vs.
... Respondent/Complainant
... Respondent/ Defacto Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records and set aside the order passed by the Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate No.I, Chengalpattu in Crl.M.P.No. 1486 of 2022 in Crl.M.P.No. 10842 of 2022.
For Petitioner : No appearance
For 1st Respondent : Mr. S.Vinoth Raja Government Advocate, Crl. Side
Crl.O.P.No.3020 of 2023
For 2nd Respondent : No appearance
ORDER
There is no appearance on behalf of the petitioner.
2 . Records reveal that even on 12.09.2023, there was no
representation and again on 09.10.2023 and on 02.11.2023, there was no representation.
3. Application has been filed by the accused in Cr.No. 912 of 2021 registered under Section 420 IPC questioning an order by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Chengalpattu in Crl.M.P.No. 1486 of 2022. Earlier, the petitioner had filed Crl.M.P.No. 10842 of 2021 seeking bail and bail had been granted to the petitioner herein on condition that he should originally appear before the respondent everyday and thereafter it was modified to appear once a month. The condition had not been complied with by the petitioner herein.
4 . Naturally, this would attract registration of the further FIR
Crl.O.P.No.3020 of 2023
under Section 229-A of IPC against the petitioner. Thereafter, the defacto complainant filed Crl.M.P.No. 1486 of 2022 to cancel the bail and the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Chengalpattu by an order dated 08.04.2022, had cancelled the bail. It had been very specifically observed by the learned Judicial Magistrate that the present petitioner
had not paid any amount to the defacto complainant though it was so directed.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner is not also present. The petitioner had not complied with any of the condition under which he had been granted bail.
6. In view of these facts, the order cancelling bail is the proper step to be taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Chengalpattu. I find no infirmity in the order. Hence, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
Crl.O.P.No.3020 of 2023
vsg
7. The respondent is directed to take the petitioner into custody
21.11.2023
vsg
To
Crl.O.P.No. 3020 of 2023
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the order cancelling bail granted to the accused for violating conditions should be set aside.
K.Ravi Kumar
The Inspector of Police Chengalpattu Town Police Station
K.Vedavalli
C.V.Karthikeyan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
