Tamil Nadu

Court directive to judicial magistrates

CHENNAI: When an anticipatory bail order passed by the High Court or Sessions Court is produced for acceptance of sureties or compliance, the judicial magistrate concerned should go through the order thoroughly and act in accordance with the directions. Unless the anticipatory bail order directs the accused to surrender or to file a surrender petition, it is not necessary for the magistrate to entertain surrender or pass orders on the surrender petition, the Madras High Court has said.

In its order on a habeas corpus petition (HCP), a Division Bench comprising Justices Prabha Sridevan and V. Periya Karuppiah, said if the magistrate had any doubt over the sureties furnished, he could postpone the acceptance, but the affidavit furnished by those who stood sureties could be accepted in proof of the facts contained therein relating to the sufficiency or fitness of sureties and pass an order of interim bail and release the accused. On enquiry, if the magistrate found that the sureties were insufficient, he may order the accused to find sufficient sureties and on his failure to do so, reject the sureties. The magistrate cannot pass an order of remand in cases where anticipatory bail had been granted to the accused as long as the bail was in force.

In the present case, A. Manikandan was granted anticipatory bail by the High Court on the condition that he should execute a bond for Rs.10,000 with two sureties for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate (JM), Gobichettypalayam. Mr. Manikandan did accordingly. The JM, instead of releasing him, sent the surety documents for verification and ordered that the person be remanded to judicial custody until verification was over. As the order, which was contrary to the High Court’s order, violated Article 21 of the Constitution, the HCP was filed.

The petitioner’s counsel, M. Radhakrishnan, submitted that the magistrate was totally wrong in remanding the detenu. Hence, the authorities should be directed to produce the detenu before the High Court.

The Bench said the bail order did not direct the detenu either to file a surrender petition or surrender before the magistrate for furnishing sureties.

The detenu voluntarily filed the surrender petition which was not warranted. The magistrate ought to have gone through the bail order and passed orders in the surrender petition by returning it as unnecessary or dismissing it and postponed the case.

The Judges said even though the magistrate’s order was not correct initially, she corrected it quickly. Therefore it was purely an irregularity and it could not be termed illegal. Hence, the Bench said it was not inclined to award compensation.

© Copyright 2000 - 2009 The Hindu