1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 09.04.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.267, 268, 269 and 270 of 2011 and M.P.(MD).Nos.1,1,1 and 1 of 2011 1. Selvi 2. Kasthuri 3. Rahu ... Petitioners in all Crl.R.Cs. Vs. State represented by the Inspector of Police, Ayyampettai Police Station, Crime No.177 of 2010 Thanjavur District. ... Respondent in Crl.R.C.No.267/2011 State represented by the Inspector of Police, Sengipatti Police Station, Crime No.17 of 2010 Thanjavur District. ... Respondent in Crl.R.C.No.268/2011 State represented by the Inspector of Police, Sengipatti Police Station, Crime No.18 of 2010 Thanjavur District. ... Respondent in Crl.R.C.No.269/2011 State represented by the Inspector of Police, Sengipatti Police Station, Crime No.104 of 2009 Thanjavur District. ... Respondent in Crl.R.C.No.270/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 Prayer: Criminal Revision Petitions filed under Section 397 r/w. 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 15.03.2011 made in Cr.M.P.Nos.709, 710, 711 and 712 of 2011 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Thanjavur. For Petitioners in all the Petitions : M/s. B.Jameel Arasu For Respondent : Mr.P.Rajendran Govt. Advocate (Crl.side) C O M M O N O R D E R The first petitioner is the elder sister of the second petitioner and the third petitioner is the brother of petitioners 1 and 2 and they filed a petition for bail in Cr.M.P.No.455 of 2011 in Crime No.177 of 2010 which was registered against them for the alleged commission of the offence under Section 379 of I.P.C. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners have been implicated number of cases and they were arrested in connection with Crime No.19 of 2011 registered by Kumbakonam North Police Station and while they were in custody, P.T. Warrant was issued and they were produced before the jurisdictional Court and remanded to judicial custody in Crime No.177 of 2010 also. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were also remanded in connection with the Crime Nos.104 of 2009, 17 of 2010 and 18 of 2010 on the file of the Sengipatti Police Station and all the cases, they filed petitions for bail. 3. The Court of Judicial Magistrate No.III, Thanjavur vide order dated 10.03.2011 in Cr.M.P.No.455 of 2011 has enlarged the petitioners in all the above said cases on bail subject to the following conditions: (i) Each of the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.1 lakh with two sureties for a like sum and those two sureties should hail from the native place of the petitioners. (ii) Sureties shall attest by the jurisdictional Thasildar. (iii) The petitioners/accused shall produce the necessary documents to the effect that they are the permanent residence and the said certificate should also be attested by the local Thasildar. The petitioner shall also obtained a certificate from the jurisdictional Probation Officer and further contention that the petitioners on their enlargement of bail shall report before the Court of Principal District Judge, Thanjavur every day at 10.30 a.m. until further orders. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners filed Cr.M.P.No.709 of 2011 for modification of the said conditions and the Court of Principal District Judge, Thanjavur vide https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 order dated 15.03.2011, reduced the value of the surety from Rs.1 lakh to Rs.5,000/- and maintained the other conditions imposed in the order dated 10.03.2011. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred these revision petitions. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also draw the attention of this Court to the typed set of documents filed in these revisions and also placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court reported in 2008 (3) CTC 769 in Anbarasan v. State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, wherein it has been held that directing the accused to offer sureties to the satisfaction of the Probation Officer in support of bail being granted is held as against the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that because of the stringent conditions, the petitioners are unable to enjoy the benefits of the orders granting bail and therefore, prays for deletion of the condition that they have to get the certificate from the jurisdictional Probation Officer. 6. On the said submission, the Court heard the submission of the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) also, who would submit that the antecedents of the petitioners are very bad as they are involved in 102 cases of similar in nature and considering their antecedents only, the Court of Principal District Judge, Thanjavur thought it fit to impose such stringent conditions. 7. The Court carefully considered the rival submissions and also perused the typed set of documents. 8. In the above cited decision, the Single Bench of this Court considered the proceedings of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 as well as the Rules framed thereunder and held as follows: "6. A conjoint reading of the above two provisions would go to show that the duties of the Probation Officer are only to the extent enumerated in Section 14 of the Act and Rule 20 of the Rules. Nowhere in these two provisions any thing has been said about power of the supervision or enquiry or verification of the antecedents, character and the fitness of persons other than offenders by the Probation Officer. Thus, going by the plain reading of these two provisions, I have no difficulty in holding that the Probation Officer cannot be directed by any Criminal Court including Judicial Magistrates to enquire into the fitness or sufficiency of a surety and to submit a report to him." 9. Even though the petitioners were granted bail, they were unable to come out on account of the conditions imposed by the Principal District Judge, Thanjavur and taking into consideration the above cited decision, this Court is of the view that condition directing the petitioners to get the certificate from the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 jurisdictional Probation Officer is to be deleted. 10. In the result, the Revision Petitions are partly allowed and the order dated 15.03.2011 made in Cr.M.P.Nos.709, 710, 711 and 712 of 2011 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Thanjavur is set aside insofar as the condition directing the petitioners to get the certificate from the Probation Officer alone is deleted and other conditions imposed in the order dated 15.03.2011 in Crl.M.P.No.709 of 2011 stands confirmed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO ) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The Principal District Judge, Thanjavur 2. The Judicial Magistrate III, Thanjavur. 3. The Inspector of Police, Ayyampettai Police Station, Thanjavur District. 4. The Inspector of Police, Sengipatti Police Station, Thanjavur District. 5. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai +1cc to Mr.B.Jameel Arasu, Advocate, Sr.No.13397 Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.267, 268, 269 and 270 of 2011 09.04.2011 akv SMA/21.04.2011/7C/4P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/