Ganesan v. Tamilarasi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED 08.01.2016

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM Crl.R.C.No.1153 of 2015 & M.P.No.1 of 2015 Ganesan .. Petitioner/1st Respondent/Accused No.1 vs.

1. Tamilarasi .. 1st Respondent/Petitioner/Surety.

2. State represented by Inspector of Police, (Erode North P.S.) now transferred to Erode District Crime Branch Crime No.621 of 2013 ..2nd Respondent/2nd Respondent/ Complainant.

Criminal Revision filed under section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. against the judgment of learned Judicial Magistrate I, Erode in C.M.P.No.987 of 2014 and Crl.M.P.No.7120 of 2013 dated 04.04.2014, which was executed by the 2nd respondent on 06.10.2015 by arresting the petitioner and remanded him. For Petitioner :

Mr.S.N.Arunkumar for Mr.P.P.Shanmugasundaram For Respondent :

Mr.C.Iyyapparaj Government Advocate [Crl.side] [R2] *****

O R D E R

This revision arises against the order of learned Judicial Magistrate I, Erode, passed in C.M.P.No.987 of 2014 on 04.04.2014.

2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Advocate [Crl.side] for the State.

3. The court below in issuing the non bailable warrant pursuant to which the petitioner was arrested and remanded in custody had done so on the reasoning that one surety had sought https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

discharge which was permitted. Such act of the Magistrate had been done without affording the petitioner an opportunity to provide an alternate surety. This Court under orders dated 05.11.2015, set aside the order under challenge and directed that the petitioner be enlarged on bail towards facilitating his compliance by providing a fresh surety who deposits title deeds of property worth Rs.40,00,000/- as against the requirement of deposit of title deeds of value Rs.50,00,000/- one other surety had deposited title deeds of property value Rs.10,00,000/-. Learned counsel for petitioner submits he is unable to now comply with the requirement.

4. In the circumstances, the emergent position is that the petitioner has become disentitled to the relief granted to him u/s. 438 Cr.P.C under orders in Crl.O.P.No.26038 of 2013 dated 31.10.2013. It would thus be open to the respondent to now cause arrest of the petitioner, if considered necessary. It would also be open to the petitioner to inform the circumstances and move a fresh petition for relief under Section 438 Cr.P.C. which of course would be considered by the court concerned on merits.

5. This Criminal Revision is dismissed. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

(Sd) Assistant Registrar (J) True copy Sub Assistant Registrar.

To

1. The Judicial Magistrate I, Erode

2. The Inspector of Police, (Erode North P.S.) now transferred to Erode District Crime Branch

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

bvr(co) prk17/2 Crl.R.C.No.1153 of 2015 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/