R. GOBINATH Vs. STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has come forward with this Revision questioning the correctness of the order dated 23.02.2015 passed by the learned Principal District Sessions Judge, Namakkal cancelling the bail granted to the petitioner by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Namakkal.

(2.) The case of the second respondent/ de facto complainant is that the properties owned and possessed by her father Chinnaiya and grand mother Athayee in various survey numbers remain undivided among the legal heirs. While so, Mrs. Balasuruli, wife of late Suryakumar, who is the brother of the de facto complainant, has given a power of attorney in favour of the petitioner herein. On the strength of the power of attorney deed, the petitioner executed three documents in favour of one Ponnusamy. In this connection, the de facto complainant gave a complaint to the first respondent police, on the basis of which, the case in Crime No. 45 of 2012 came to be registered for the offences under Section 120 (B), 419, 467, 471, 420 and 506(ii) of IPC. Upon registration of the case, the petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 29.10.2012. The petitioner thereafter filed CMP No. 8111 of 2012 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Namakkal seeking bail. During the pendency of the said application in CMP No. 8111 of 2012 for bail, yet another application in CMP No. 8200 of 2012 was filed through another counsel for the very same relief of bail. On 09.11.2012 the petitioner was enlarged on bail as prayed for in CMP No. 8200 of 2012. The de facto complainant therefore filed a Petition in CMP No. 1707 of 2012 for cancellation of the bail on the ground that the petitioner has also filed yet another application for bail through another counsel and it was pending, while so, suppressing the same, the petitioner has filed the Petition in CMP No. 8200 of 2012 and obtained an order of bail. The said application No. 1707 of 2012 was allowed on 09.11.2012 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal thereby the bail granted to the petitioner was cancelled. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed Crl.R.C. No. 1524 of 2012 before this Court and it was allowed on 09.01.2013 on the ground that the cancellation of bail was ordered without notice to the petitioner. Therefore, by the said order dated 09.01.2013, this Court remanded the matter back to the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal for fresh consideration. After remand, opportunity was given to the petitioner to file a counter. In the counter filed on behalf of the petitioner, it was stated that the petitioner was granted bail by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Namakkal after taking note of the objections raised by the prosecution and on perusal of the materials placed on record. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, after appreciating the rival contentions and after recording the sequence of events involved, has passed the order dated 23.02.2015 thereby cancelling the order of bail granted to the petitioner on 09.11.2012 in CMP No. 8200 of 2012 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Namakkal. It is this order dated 09.11.2012 which is questioned in this Criminal Revision Case.

(3.) The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that there is no compelling necessity or reason for the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal to cancel the order granting bail in favour of the petitioner. According to the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has nothing to do with the filing of the second application seeking bail. It is stated that immediately after arrest of the petitioner, the anxious relatives of the petitioner, in order to ensure the release of the petitioner on bail, have approached two different counsel for filing application for bail without the knowledge of the petitioner. The learned senior counsel for the also submitted that the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal has only taken note of the fact that when an application seeking the very same relief is pending, the petitioner ought not to have filed another application. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal has further taken into account that the petitioner had suppressed the filing of the earlier application seeking bail. However, the learned learned Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal did not take note of the fact that the petitioner himself was not aware of the filing of the two applications seeking the same relief, especially when the petitioner was in jail at the time of filing of the applications. The learned senior counsel further would contend that when bail is granted, it cannot be automatically cancelled unless the petitioner violates any one of the conditions of bail. The learned Judicial Magistrate had granted bail by taking note of the fact that the petitioner is under incarceration for more than 20 days. Further, after being released on bail, the petitioner has cooperated with the investigation agency, complied with the conditions imposed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. I while granting bail and the investigation officer has also filed the charge sheet.