No Whisper About Ailments In Non-Speaking Docket Order Of Bail: Madras HC Cancels Bail Granted On Medical Grounds
|The Madras High Court cancelled the bail granted by a magistrate, observing that the non-speaking bail order had "no whisper" of any medical grounds.
The Court called the grant of bail a “clear abuse of process of law” since the Judicial Magistrate had submitted the explanation for granting such bail on medical grounds. However, the Court stated that in the explanation, the magistrate had stated so many ailments, however, in the order copy, there is no mention of the same.
A Single Bench of Justice A.A. Nakkiran observed, “This Court…directed the Registry to call for explanation from the Judicial Magistrate, Tenkasi, who passed the impugned bail order, with regard to the non-speaking docket order of bail. The learned Judicial Magistrate…has stated that the bail was granted only on the medical grounds. In the explanation, he has stated so many ailment, however, in the order copy, there is no whisper about the same…Hence, it is a clear abuse of process of law. Hence, the bail granted to the second respondent/accused is liable to be cancelled. Accordingly, the same is cancelled.”
Advocate G.Karuppasamy Pandian appeared for the petitioner, while GA M.Vaikkam Karunanithi represented the respondents.
A petition was filed to cancel a bail order granted to a petitioner under Section 483(2) of the Cr.P.C. The petition also prayed for directions for the petitioner to be arrested and to be committed to custody.
The petitioner submitted that the Judicial Magistrate had passed the bail order only in four lines, which did not “explicit the application of mind by the Magistrate” while granting bail. It was argued that except for stating that the petitioner was released on bail based on medical condition, there was nothing in the order to show what the ailment was.
Hence, the petitioner argued that the discretion of the Magistrate to grant bail had been misused by the Magistrate by passing the cryptic bail order.
The complainant on the other hand submitted that in a non-bailable offence, it was mandatory to give notice to the prosecution agency to hear their objection and hence, sufficient opportunity had to be given to the prosecution agency to submit their contentions.
When the High Court called for an explanation from the Magistrate who passed the impugned “non-speaking” bail order, the magistrate stated that the bail was granted only on medical grounds.
The Bench noted that clear abuse of process of law and therefore, cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner.
Consequently, the Court held, “Hence, the bail granted to the second respondent/accused is liable to be cancelled. Accordingly, the same is cancelled.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition.
Cause Title: Raja Gopalan v. State & Anr.
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate G. Karuppasamy Pandian
Respondents: GA M.Vaikkam Karunanithi; Advocate V. Muthukamachi