KARUNA ALIAS KARUNAKARAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the accused in C.C.No. 2302 of 1989 on the file of the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras. This petition under Sec.482, Crl.P.C, has been filed for a direction to the said Magistrate not to remand the petitioner to custody in the event of committal of the case to the Court of Sessions, Madras.

(2.) IN respect of an occurrence said to have taken place on 12.10.1988, the petitioner has been charge-sheeted for offences under Secs.332, 336, 427 and 506(2), INdian Penal Code. The petitioner was arrested on 13.10.1988 and remanded to custody. Sometime later, preventive detention under Act 14 of 1982 was clamped on him and it appears that a Bench of this Court allowed his writ petition challenging the said detention. However, extension of remand of the petitioner was not prayed for by the respondent and this led to his release. Now C.C. No.2302 of 1989 appears to be on the verge of committal. The Supreme Court in Free Legal Aid Committee, Jamshedpur v.. State of Bihar,A.I.R. 1982S.C. 1463, while considering the provisions enshrined in Secs.437, 441(3) and 209(b) of the Crl.P.C. observed thus: "When an accused is released on bail by the Magistrate, the bail is granted to him only during the pendency of the inquiry before the Magistrate, with the result that when the case is committed to the Court of Session, he is rearrested and brought before the Court of Session where he has to apply once again for fresh bail. This causes considerable inconvenience to the accused without any corresponding advantage so far as the administration of criminal justice is concerned. It would avoid hardship to an accused if the Magistrate, while releasing the accused on bail, requires execution of a bond with or without surety, as the case may be, binding the accused not only to appear as and when required before him but also to appear when called upon in the Court of Session. A Magistrate should normally follow this procedure unless there are any particular reasons or not doing so." This wholesome principle has been laid down by the Supreme Court taking into consideration the disadvantages caused to the accused and the lack of any benefit for the administration of criminal justice. Though the pronouncement had been made in the light of the provisions under Sec.209, Crl.P.C. I am of the view that the said principle can be extended while exercising inherent powers under Sec.482, Crl.P.C., in order to secure the ends of justice. The release of the petitioner had been made under Sec.167, Crl.P.C., which necessarily has to be given effect to, on the facts of this case, by utilising the provisions of Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As long as the Court is satisfied that the petitioner will not evade justice and will be available for trial before the Court of Session there will be no impediment for this Court to direct the Magistrate not to remand the accused to custody in the event of commitment but to bind him over on his executing a bond, in a sum as deemed fit by the Magistrate, along with two sureties to ensure his appearance, for trial before the Court of Session. IN that view, I direct the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras, to release the petitioner and bind him over on such terms and conditions as deemed fit by him in the event of committal of C.C. No.2302 of 1989 to the Court of Sessions, so that the presence of the petitioner before the Sessions Court for trial can be ensured. This petition is allowed.