HARI @ HARIDOSS Vs. STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order dtd. 21/5/2016 passed by the second respondent herein viz., Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Chengalpattu, Kancheepuram District, in M.C.No.54 of 2016, directing the petitioner herein to be detained in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, for a period of six months for violation of Bond for good conduct as per Sec. 122(1)(b) of Cr.P.C.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the impugned order was passed by the learned Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Chengalpattu, Kancheepuram District, without application of mind and appreciation of facts. It is further contended that the learned Magistrate failed to note that all the cases registered against the petitioner herein are false and put up cases with a motive to harass and humiliate him in one way or other. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the learned Magistrate had failed to note the fact that without proper verification of documents and materials, all the cases have been put up against the petitioner herein and therefore, the learned counsel prayed that the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate may be set aside and the Criminal Revision Case may be allowed.

(3.) The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would contend that the learned Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Chengalpattu, Kancheepuram District, after perusing all the materials produced on behalf of the petitioner, came to a correct conclusion and passed the impugned order. It is further contended that there is no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the learned Magistrate and hence, the learned Government Advocate prayed that the Criminal Revision Case may be dismissed.