1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 07.02.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1486 of 2011 Ananth ... Petitioner Vs. The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Kulithalai, Crime No.5 of 2010 ... Respondent PRAYER: This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the order passed in Cr.M.P.No.1482 of 2010, on 05.01.2011 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Karur. For Petitioner : M/s. S.Ravichandran For Respondent : Mrs.S.Devasena Govt. Advocate (Crl.side) O R D E R This petition has been filed to set aside the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Karur in Cr.M.P.No.1482 of 2010, dated 05.01.2011. 2. Heard Mr.S.Ravichandran, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.S.Devasena, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the State. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit in his argument that the petitioner has applied for relaxation of the condition imposed by the Sessions Court, while granting an order of bail in Crl.M.P.No.1318 of 2010, on 06.12.2010 and when the petition filed by the petitioner in Crl.M.P.No.1482 of 2010 seeking for relaxation, the learned Public Prosecutor of the said Court has reported that the petitioner did not comply with the conditions and therefore, the petitioner has not pressed the said petition. However, the lower Court intervened and passed an order of dismissal of the petition filed by the petitioner and also cancelled the bail granted in favour of the petitioner by the said Court in Crl.M.P.No.1318 of 2010 on 06.12.2010. He would further submit that the learned Sessions Judge should have given an opportunity to the petitioner to comply with the condition or the said order should have been passed in a petition filed by the State for cancellation of the bail granted to the petitioner. He would further submit that he was not given any opportunity to state his case, while the bail was cancelled by the said Court. Therefore, he would request the Court that the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Karur, on 05.01.2011 in Crl.M.P.No.1482 of 2010, cancelling the bail granted in Crl.M.P.No.1318 of 2010, dated 06.12.2010 may be set aside. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) would submit in her argument that the petitioner did not comply with the condition imposed by the said Court, when he was granted bail in Crl.M.P.No.1318 of 2010, on 06.12.2010 and the lower Court has rightly come to the conclusion of cancelling the bail itself, since the petitioner did not comply with the condition from the beginning. She would further submit in her argument that the petitioner has an obligation to comply with the condition. But he did not comply with the condition. Therefore, he is not entitled to question the said order before this Court. Hence, she would request the said Court to dismiss the said petition. 5. Considering the submissions made on either side, this Court could see that the petitioner was granted bail in Crl.M.P.No.1318 of 2010, on 06.12.2010, by the learned Sessions Judge, Karur with certain conditions. Admittedly, the petitioner has filed another petition in Crl.M.P.No.1482 of 2010 for relaxation of the said condition and during the enquiry, the learned Public Prosecutor reported the said Court that the petitioner did not comply with the condition imposed. Therefore, the petitioner was also likely to withdraw the said petition. However, the learned Sessions Judge has dismissed the said petition and cancelled the bail already granted by the Court in Crl.M.P.No.1318 of 2010, dated 06.12.2010. No doubt it is true that the petitioner has not complied with the condition on the date of filing of the petition in Crl.M.P.No.1482 of 2010. However, he was inclined to withdraw the said petition. The lower Court ought to have waited for filing any petition for cancellation of the bail against the petitioner, in case the petitioner did not comply with the condition. Without any verification of all these particulars through records, the lower Court should not pass an order of cancellation of bail. Moreover, the petitioner should have been given an opportunity to state his case, since he was granted an order of bail, which is also a valuable right for him. In the said circumstances, this Court finds that the cancellation of bail ordered by the learned Sessions Judge, Karur, in a petition filed by the petitioner seeking for relaxation of the condition imposed is not only an error but also a hurried order, which is not sustainable in criminal jurisprudence. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to set aside the said order, which is an abuse of process of law. Hence, the bail order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Karur in Crl.M.P.No.1318 of 2010, dated 06.12.2010, is restored. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) had reported that as on today, he has not complied the conditions. The petitioner is permitted to appear before the respondent police daily at 10.00 a.m. till further orders, which shall be commenced from 11.02.2011 onwards without fail. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the Criminal Original Petition is ordered. akv Sd/- Assistant Registrar[Crl side] /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 To 1. The Sessions Judge, Karur. 2. The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Kulithalai. 3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. +1 cc to Mr.S.Ravichandran, Advocate SR.No.4937. Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1486 of 2011 Dated:07.02.2011 3P/5C RPB 09.02.2011[I.T.] https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/