Default Bail Order U/s. 167(2) CrPC Is More Of Arithmetic Exercise, Trial Court Has No Discretion To Grant Same Unlike Regular Bail: Madras HC

While dislodging the order of preventive detention, the Madras High Court held that default bail order under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. is more of an arithmetic exercise i.e., numeric statutory expression and there is no discretion for the Trial Court in granting bail, unlike a regular bail under Section 437 Cr.P.C. or 439 Cr.P.C.

The High Court held so while considering a petition seeking issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to call for the records connected with the detention order on the file of the second respondent (District Collector and District Magistrate) and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body and person of petitioner's husband, aged about 39 years, who is now confined at Central Prison, Trichy.

The Division Bench comprising of Justice M. Sundar and Justice R. Sakthivel observed that “comparison of a default bail order under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. with the ground case to arrive at aforementioned subjective satisfaction qua imminent possibility of detenu being enlarged on bail is clearly a flawed exercise”.

Advocate P. Muthamizh Selvakumar appeared for the Petitioner, whereas APP E. Raj Thilak appeared for the Respondent.

After considering the submission, the Bench observed that the preventive detention order which had been challenged under the present petition had been passed under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyberlaw offenders, Drug-offenders, Forest-offenders, Goondas, Immoral traffic offenders, Sand-offenders, Sexual-offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act No.14 of 1982) on the premise that the detenu is a 'Goonda' within the meaning of Section 2(f) of Act 14 of 1982.

The main contention to challenge to the impugned preventive detention was that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority as regards the imminent possibility of detenu being enlarged on bail is impaired, added the Bench.

Therefore, while directing for release of the detenue, the Bench reminded that preventive detention is not a punishment and HCP is a high prerogative writ.

Cause Title: Gokila v. Additional Chief Secretary to Government and Ors.

Click here to read/download the Order