SAFIYA Vs. SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is a resident of Badagara Taluk. She, alongwith her husband, is alleged to have committed offence under S.420 read with S.34 IPC. Mundakkayam Police registered crime 95/88 against her and her husband. They sent F.I.R. to the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Kanjirappally. Petitioner was arrested from her residence at Azhiyoor in Calicut district on 31-8-1988. She was produced before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kanjirappally on 1-9-1988. Police applied for remand till 15-9-1988. In the remand application it was alleged that first accused has not been arrested and that in case she is released it will obstruct the investigation of the case. She was remanded to judicial custody. On 3-9-1988 she applied for bail. Learned Magistrate granted her interim bail. Thereafter petitioner was directed to appear in court on days to which the case stood posted. She was also directed to appear before the Circle Inspector of Police on all Mondays. This caused very great hardship to the petitioner. Police have not completed the investigation and filed charge sheet. Hence this petition praying inter alia for quashing the proceedings before court wherein she is being directed to be present in court in connection with the crime case pending investigation by the police.

(2.) When this petition came up for orders on 28-7-1989 this court directed the Magistrate to report the reason why petitioner is being directed to appear in court on dates to which the crime case is posted. He was also directed to report whether crimes registered by the police are given postings in his court and are being adjourned from time to time. In pursuance to that direction learned Magistrate sent up a report. That report gives the following details: Petitioner was produced before the learned Magistrate on 1-9-1988 with a remand report for detaining her in Sub Jail, Ponkunnam till 15-9-1988. In pursuance to that remand application, petitioner was sent to the Sub Jail, Ponkunnam. On 3-9-1988 she moved C.M.P. 2369/88 for release on bail. On that day the A.P.P. was absent. So interim bail was granted till 8-9-1988. Sureties were persons residing outside the jurisdiction of that court. They had not produced tax receipt or solvency certificate. But they remitted the amount of bond of Rs. 3000/- under S.445 of the Code. On 8-9-1988 petitioner appeared in court. A.P.P. was also present, petitioner filed application for bail. Interim bail granted was extended to 22-9-1988 with a direction that she should appear before the Circle Inspector of Police, Crime Detachment, Kottayam on all Mondays at 11 a.m. The case was adjourned to 22-9-1988. On that day she was present in court. Interim bail was extended till 12-10-1988. On 12-10-1988 also she was present before court. Interim bail was again extended till 26-10-1988. Direction to appear before the investigating officer on Mondays was vacated. On 26-10-1988 petitioner was present in court. Interim bail was extended further till 21-11-1988. On 21-11-1988 petitioner was absent but applied for time. The case was adjourned to 15-12-1988. On 15-12-1988 also she was absent. She applied for adjournment. The case was posted to 29-12-1988. On 29-12-1988 petitioner applied with medical certificate. The case was then adjourned to 12-1-1989. On 12-1-1989 she was present in court. Learned Magistrate extended interim bail till 30-1-1989. On 30-1-1989 when the petitioner appeared before court, the interim bail was again extended till 20-3-1989. On 20-3-1989 petitioner again appeared before court. Bail was made absolute and gave a posting to the case to 29-4-1989. On 29-4-1989 petitioner was absent but applied for time. Then the case was posted to 30-6-1989. On that day also petitioner was absent. She applied for adjournment. Then the case was posted to 28-7-1989. On 28-7-1989 she was present in court. Then the learned Magistrate directed her to appear on receipt of summons and her application for bail was closed. According to the learned Magistrate offence charged against the petitioner is non bailable. Investigation is pending. Therefore, she was directed to appear in court on dates to which the case was posted. He further states that in crime cases when accused are arrested and produced with remand report or when accused surrender in bailable offences, bail is granted and they are directed to appear on summons. In non bailable offences interim bail is granted and crime case is posted to another date for hearing of A.P.P. After hearing both sides, bail is made absolute and postings are not given and accused are directed to appear on summons. This is the usual practice. But in some grave crime cases, according to the learned Magistrate postings are given and crime case is adjourned from time to time.

(3.) As per proviso to S.437(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, learned Magistrate ought to have released petitioner on bail. Instead of releasing her on bail he remanded her to judicial custody. She was detained in custody for 2 days. Thereafter she was released on interim bail. She was directed to appear before court after five days, the sureties having deposited the entire money covered by the bond invoking the provisions contained in S.445 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On 8-9-1988 when she appeared before court A.P.P. was present. Instead of hearing petitioner's application for bail, learned Magistrate extended interim bail for another 14 days. Petitioner was directed to appear before Circle Inspector of Police, Crime Detachment, Kottayam on all Mondays. Interim bail granted was extended for a total period of 7 months. She was forced to appear in court on 11 occasions when the crime case was given posting. Even after making the interim bail absolute, learned Magistrate insisted on her appearance in court on dates to which the crime case was adjourned. This practice adopted by the learned Magistrate is an abuse of process of court. He was acting without jurisdiction. Petitioner being a lady should have been released on bail on the very day she was produced before him. Instead of that, learned Magistrate remanded her to custody and two days later granted interim bail for shorter durations and directed her to appear before the Circle Inspector, Crime Detachment, Kottayam, on all Mondays. This direction has resulted in harassment to the petitioner. She, a resident of Azhiyoor in Calicut district had to undertake journey to Kottayam once in every week and then to Ponkunnam to appear before court on short intervals.