1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 28.06.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN Crl.R.C.(MD)No.263 of 2011 and M.P.(MD).Nos.1 and 3 of 2011 1. Sakthimurugan 2. Radha Bai ... Petitioners Vs. 1. State through the Sub Inspector of Police, Vadipatti Police Station, Madurai District, Crime No.52 of 2011. 2. T.Sangaiah ... Respondents Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w. 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 15.03.2011 passed by the learned District Munsif- cum-Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti in Cr.M.P.No.778 of 2011. For Petitioner : Mr. A.P.Muthupandian For R1 : Mr.P.Kandasamy Govt. Advocate (Crl.side) For R2 : Mr.V.Thirumal O R D E R By consent, the revision itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioners are arrayed as accused in Crime No.52 of 2011 registered by the respondent police for the alleged commission of the offences under Sections 406, 420 and 506(ii) I.P.C. and they were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 09.02.2011. The revision petitioners/accused moved for bail in Crl.M.P.No.617 of 2011 before the Court of District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti and the said Court vide order dated 14.02.2011, had enlarged them on bail subject to the execution of bond for a sum of Rs.5,000/- each with two sureties for a like sum and further condition that they shall deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- each and further directed to stay and appear before the Sattur Police station daily at 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. until further orders. 3. The second respondent/de-facto complainant alleging the non- compliance of the above said order, moved a petition for cancellation of bail in Cr.M.P.No.778 of 2011 before the said Court. 4. The lower Court after hearing the revision petitioners herein, who was arrayed as respondents, has cancelled the bail granted to them vide order dated 15.03.2011, stating that they have not appeared on some dates. Challenging the vires of the same, the present revision is preferred. 5. This Court vide order dated 30.03.2011, has ordered notice to the State as well as to the second respondent returnable on 12.04.2011 and granted interim order subject to the condition that the petitioner shall https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 report before the Samayanallur Police Station daily at 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. until further orders. The petitioners after complying the conditions, moved M.P.No.2 of 2011 for relaxation of the condition and this Court vide order dated 28.04.2011, has modified the condition to the effect that the petitioner shall report before the first respondent police station every Sunday at 5.00 p.m. until further orders. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners would submit that the material part of the investigation has already been over and even assuming without admitting that the petitioners have not chosen to comply with the original bail order and the fact remains that subsequently they have scrupulously complied with the order passed by this Court on 30.03.2011 which came to be modified on 28.04.2011 and therefore, prayed for setting aside the order cancelling the bail. 7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners on instructions would further undertake that in the event of the respondent being allowed the revision petitioners to comply with any condition imposed in this regard and they will not hamper the investigation and tamper with the witnesses. 8. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) would submit that the petitioners have not appeared before the first respondent police station on 26.06.2011. 9. The learned counsel for the second respondent/de-facto complainant would vehemently contend that since the revision petitioners have not chosen to comply with the condition imposed in the original bail order, the bail granted to them was rightly cancelled by the lower Court and interference may not be warranted at the hands of this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the second respondent that admittedly the petitioners did not appear before the first respondent police station on 26.06.2011 and the said conduct may also be taken into consideration. In response to the said submission, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the revision petitioners were already suspended from services and with regard to the non appearance on 26.06.2011, the instructions given to them have not been properly understood and their absence on that day was neither wilful nor wanton but only due to bona fide reasons. 10. The Court carefully considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials in the form of typed set of documents. 11. This Court taking into consideration of the fact that the petitioners had complied with the conditions imposed by this Court on 30.03.2011 and also subsequently, complied with the conditions modified by this Court vide order dated 28.04.2011 except on 26.06.2011, is of the view that the non-appearance of the petitioners before the first respondent on 26.06.2011 is to be condoned. 12. This Court also taking into consideration of the fact that the petitioners were appearing before the first respondent daily in terms of the order dated 30.03.2011, subsequently had also complied with the conditions modified by this Court except on 26.06.2011, is of the view that one more opportunity is to be given to the revision petitioners to comply with the modified conditions imposed by this court vide order dated 28.04.2011. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 13. This Court taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances of the case, is of the view that the impugned order cancelling the bail granted to the petitioners is to be set aside, subject to certain conditions. 14. In the result, the revision is allowed and the order dated 15.03.2011 made in Cr.M.P.No.778 of 2011 is set aside, subject to the following conditions: The revision petitioners shall appear before the first respondent on every Monday at 5.00 p.m. until further orders till filing of the final report. 15. If the petitioners fail to comply with the above said order and try to tamper with the witnesses and hamper the investigation, it is always open to the respondents to move this Court for cancellation of bail. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. Sd/- Deputy Registrar (Accounts) /True copy/ Assistant Registrar To 1.The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti. 2.Do through The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai. 3.The Sub Inspector of Police, Vadipatti Police Station, Madurai District. 4.The Inspector of Police, Samayanallur Police Station, Madurai District. 5.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. +1. CC to Mr.A.P.Muthupandian, Advocate, SR.No. 20497 +1. CC to Mr.V.Thirumal, Advocate, SR.No. 20566 akv Crl.R.C.(MD)No.263 of 2011 28.06.2011 TR : 08.07.2011 : 3p/8c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/