INDIRAKUMAR Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The invoking of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is sought for to set aside the order dated 18-4-l990oflearned Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil in Cr1. M.P. No. 556 of 1990 cancelling the bail.

(2.) The petitioners are the accused in Crime No. 282/89 registered by the Inspector of Police, Suchindram, the respondent herein for alleged offences under Sections 147, 148, 341 and 302 I.P.C. and under Section 5 of the Indian Explosive Substances Act They were ordered to be released on bail in Cr1. M.P. Nos. 1841, 1937 and 19530f 1989 respectively on 20-10-1989; 3110- 1989 and 2-11-1989 on condition that the petitioners 1, 2 and 4 should reside at Madurai and report before the Judicial Magistrate, Madurai daily at 10 A.M. and that the petitioners 3 and 5 should reside at Trichirapalli and report before the Judicial Magistrate, Trichy daily at 10.00 A.M. The conditions so imposed appear to have been modified at different stages and finally by an order passed on 5-4-1990 in Cr1. M.P. No. 556 of 1990, the conditions imposed earlier were modified to the effect that they can enter the scene village and should report before the respondent daily at 10 A.M. and 5 P.M. until further orders. They did not appear to have adhered to the conditions so imposed and consequently the respondent filed a report as to such non-compliance and learned Sessions Judge, in turn issued a show-cause notice on 17-4-1990 to learned Counsel Mr. S. Robert, who appeared in the matter directing him to appear before him on or before 18-4-1990 and show cause why the bail granted to the petitioners should not be cancelled. Due deference to the notice so issued, learned Counsel appeared and represented that he was not in a position to state whether his clients had complied with the order of bail. Thereafter, learned Sessions Judge, without issuance of any notice to the petitioners cancelled the bail granted to them and issued non-bailable warrant and directed the respondent to arrest and produce them before the committal Magistrate, giving rise to the present petition.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioners would put forth the following submissions :- The Court, which granted bail has no power to cancel the same SUO. MOTU without any application being taken in that regard by the prosecuting agency; Even otherwise; the cardinal principles of natural justice in giving an opportunity to a person before any order is passed against him, as adumbrated in the Latin maxim AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM shall be adhered to and such non-compliance is nothing but a sheer abuse of process of law vitiating the order; and The order for grant of bail differs widely from its cancellation and the order of cancellation cannot so lightly be made unless there are overwhelming, impelling and impinging circumstances pointing out, that the person on bail, misused his liberty in such a way as to cause prejudice to the cause of justice in either issuing a threat to the witnesses not to depots against him or may attempt to tamper them. Learned Government Advocate would repel all those submissions.