HARI ALIAS MAN ROAD HARI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is filed to set aside the order, dated 19. 09. 2007, passed in Crl. M. P. No. 55 of 2007 in S. C. No. 249 of 2007 by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court-I), Chidambaram, wherein the prayer of the petitioner for recalling the P. T. Warrant was rejected.

(2.) PETITIONER is the accused. A case in Crime No. 23 of 2003 came to be registered against him on the file of respondent police for the offences under Sections 294,392,397 and 506-II IPC. Since the police had not laid the final report within 90 days, the Judicial Magistrate, Parangipettai, released the petitioner on bail under Section 167 (2) Cr. P. C. on 16. 02. 2004. On 05. 02. 2007, another case in Crime No. 42 of 2007 was registered by Annamalai Nagar Police Station against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 294,324 and 307 IPC and he was remanded to judicial custody by Judicial Magistrate No. I, Chidambaram. Since the petitioner could not appear for the hearings in Crime No. 23 of 2003 on account of his arrest in another case, the Judicial Magistrate, Parangipettai, issued a P. T. Warrant, pursuant to which he was produced and taken into custody. The case in Crime No. 23 of 2003 had been taken on file in P. R. C. No. 40 of 2006 and then it was committed to the Court of Sessions, Cuddalore, which is now pending in S. C. No. 249 of 2007 on the file of Additional Sessions Court (Fast Track Court-I), Chidambaram. In the case in Crime No. 42 of 2007 also, the petitioner was released on bail, however, he was not released from the prison, in view of the pendency of P. T. Warrant.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner would strenuously contend that when the petitioner was released on bail in both the cases, detaining him in custody could not be justified and, hence, the P. T. Warrant has to be necessarily recalled.