Dhanabal vs. The Inspector Of Police
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Accused No. 3 in Crime No. 123 of 2014, sought bail. A charge sheet was filed, and the case was taken on file as PRC No. 1 of 2019 before the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kadaladi. Due to the petitioner's failure to appear, a Non-Bailable Warrant was issued on August 6, 2019. The petitioner was arrested on June 16, 2021. The petitioner's counsel argued that the delay in surrender was due to the Covid-19 pandemic and that the petitioner had been in jail since his arrest. An affidavit from a coir factory owner was submitted, offering sureties and enclosing GST Registration and MSME Certificates.
Held
The Court granted bail to the petitioner. It considered the facts and circumstances, including the affidavit filed by a respectable person willing to furnish sureties, the petitioner's willingness to file an undertaking affidavit to appear regularly without seeking condonation for absence, and the period of incarceration. The Court directed the petitioner to be released on bail upon executing a bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kadaladi. Additional conditions included affixing photographs and thumb impressions on the surety bond, providing identity proof for sureties, the petitioner appearing in court without fail on all future dates, filing an undertaking affidavit, not absconding, and not tampering with evidence or witnesses. The Court also noted that on breach of conditions, the Magistrate could take appropriate action as per law, and a fresh FIR could be registered under Section 229A IPC if the accused absconded thereafter.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. considering his prolonged incarceration and the circumstances of his arrest? The petitioner argued that his non-appearance was due to the Covid-19 pandemic and that he had been in jail since June 16, 2021. He expressed willingness to appear on all future dates and not file for condonation of absence. He also submitted an affidavit from a third party willing to furnish sureties, which included GST and MSME certificates, indicating his business operations. The respondent (State) contended that a Non-Bailable Warrant was issued on August 6, 2019, due to the petitioner's non-appearance, and he was only secured on June 16, 2021.
Sections Cited
Section 439, Section 229A IPC
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER : The Court made the following order :-
The petitioner herein is A3 in Crime No.123 of 2014. In this case, a charge sheet was filed and the same was taken on file as PRC No.1 of 2019 on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kadaladi. Since the petitioner failed to appear before the concerned Magistrate, a Non-Bailable Warrant of arrest was issued against him on 06.08.2019 and he was arrested only on 16.06.2021. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of Covid-19 pandemic, the petitioner could not surrender before the Court. Since the petitioner is languishing in jail from 16.06.2021, he prayed for grant of bail. The learned counsel further submits 1/3 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ that the petitioner will appear before the trial Court on all future hearing dates without fail and he will not file any petition for condoning his absence and he is prepared to file an affidavit to that effect before the trial Court. He has also filed an affidavit of one Jeyaprakash, who is running a coir factory in Orathanadu Taluk, Thanjavur District in the name and style of M/s.Vriksham Coirs, wherein, he agreed to furnish sureties to the petitioner and also enclosed GST Registration Certificate and MSME Certificate.
The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submits that due to non-appearance of the petitioner, Non-Bailable Warrant of arrest was issued on 06.08.2019 and the petitioner was secured only on 16.06.2021. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the affidavit filed by one Jayaprakash, who is the respectable person in his locality, the willingness of the petitioner to file an undertaking affidavit and also the period of incarceration, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is ordered. The petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only), with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kadaladi and on further conditions that: [a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity. [b] the petitioner shall appear before the trial Court on all future hearing dates without fail. [c] the petitioner shall file an undertaking affidavit before the trial Court that he will appear before the Court regularly without filing any application to condone his absence on any date of hearing. [d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during trial.
[e] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during 1trial. [f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560]. 2/3 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ [g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC. 09/09/2021 // / /2021 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. msa/OGY Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned. TO 1. THE DISTRICT MUNSIF CUM JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KADALADI.
DO-THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT.
THE OFFICER INCHARGE, DISTRICT JAIL, RAMANATHAPURAM.
THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SAYALKUDI POLICE STATION, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT.
THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1 CC TO MR.S.RAMSUNDARVIJAYRAJ, ADVOCATE, SR.NO.6117 DATED:09.09.2021. ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.13021 of 2021 Date :09/09/2021
GC/SKN/SAR-IV(09.09.2021) 3P 7C
3/3 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
Reproduced from the public record of the Madras High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.