A.Rashid v. State Represented By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATE : 30.07.2020

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI CRL. O.P. NO. 10772 OF 2020 A.Rashid .. Petitioner - Vs - State, rep. By The Inspector of Police Vadavalli Police Station Vadavalli, Coimbatore Coimbatore District.

.. Respondent Criminal Original Petition filed u/s 483 of the Criminal Procedure Code praying this Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of arrest pending investigation in Crime No.344 of 2019 on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioner : Mr. K.Balasubramaniam For Respondents : Ms. K.Thankira, GA (Crl. Side)

ORDER

The petitioner is A-2 in the above crime, which was registered by the respondent police against the petitioner and three other persons on the allegation that they were in possession of the demonetised thousand rupee notes in bundles in bundles and only the top of the bundles contained the thousand rupee notes and the other notes were all white paper cut to size of the thousand rupee notes. It is the further allegation against the accused that their was only to cheat the persons.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is an innocent person and has not committed any offence and that he is a tenant under A-1, whose wife is the owner of the premises. It is the further case of the petitioner that he is not aware of the secret space where the currency was stored and that without appreciating that he is a tenant of the said premises, he has been falsely roped into the case. It is the further case of the petitioner that A-1, A3 and A-4 have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in Crl. O. Nos.35047/19, 230/20 and 55/20 by common order dated 3.2.2020.

3. It is the further case of the petitioner that the earlier anticipatory bail application filed in Crl. O.P. No.2592/2020 was allowed by this Court on 7.2.20 and since the petitioner was under treatment for blood cancer, he was unable to execute the sureties and, therefore, extension of time was granted in Crl. M.P. No.2827/20 by order dated 3.3.20 granting extension for a further period of two weeks.

4. It is the further case of the petitioner that his periodic treatment and the pandemic situation prevented the petitioner from moving out due to which he was not able to execute the sureties within the time stipulated and, thereby, unable to comply with the said order. Since, the condition was not complied with, the bail granted stood dismissed automatically, which prompted the petitioner to file the present petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for bona fide reasons, he was not able to comply with the condition, but, however submitted that he would prevail upon the petitioner to pay a cost of Rs.1,00,000/- to Cancer Institute, Chennai, for the inconvenience caused.

6. This Court heard the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) on the above and also perused the materials available on record.

7. The facts in issue are not in dispute. Earlier bail application was granted by this Court and due to non-compliance of the conditions, the petitioner sought for extension of time, which was also granted by this Court. The above orders were passed during February - March, 2020. The conditions imposed by this Court in the earlier orders have not been complied with till date. However, it is to be noted here that the petitioner is still at large and has not been apprehended by the police. In this backdrop, after a lapse of around four months, the present anticipatory bail application has been once again moved by the petitioner.

8. The above act of the petitioner, coupled with the attitude of the respondent police in not taking any action in accordance with law for apprehending the petitioner even after lapse of almost four months from the time from which the bail granted by this Court stood dismissed automatically, definitely is a point that weighs in the mind of this Court, while considering the case of the petitioner in grant of anticipatory bail. For almost four months, the petitioner having not been apprehended by the police clearly puts the matter in a different light from the time when anticipatory bail was initially granted to the petitioner. On an overall consideration of the matter, in the light of the above factual position, this Court is of the considered view that all is not well with the petitioner as well as the investigation agency. However, the fact remains that the other accused, viz., A-1, A-3 and A-4 have been granted anticipatory bail by this Court. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner could be granted bail on imposition of costs.

9. Initially, on the undertaking of the learned counsel for the petitioner to pay cost, this Court, taking a lenient view, was inclined to grant anticipatory on condition of payment of a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) to the Cancer Institute, Chennai and learned counsel was directed to inform the petitioner and report the the matter to the Court before the end of the session. However, before the end of the session, no information was forth coming.

10. It is to be pointed out at this juncture that for the convenience of conducting the virtual court and for the convenience of the counsel, the landline number of the Judge was provided so that in case of poor connectivity during the virtual court session, the counsel would have access to the Judge over phone. The landline number was provided only for the said limited purpose. However, curiously, once the virtual court session was over, a few minutes thereafter, a call had come over the landline in which a person spoke and had asked me about the order passed in the said case. When queried by me, the person took divergent stands, at one time telling that he was not able to connect in the virtual court session and later saying that he was the junior of the learned counsel who appeared before the Court.

On persistent query by me, ultimately, it was revealed that he was a person related to the petitioner. In such a backdrop, the intention of this Court being misused by the petitioner by calling me directly could only be inferred on the level of trust the petitioner has posed on his advocate. Being dissatisfied with the conduct of the petitioner, this Court was inclined to enhance the cost to Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs). However, immediately thereafter, another call emanated in favour of the petitioner making the same queries and querying me about the imposition of cost. Perturbed at the conduct of the petitioner in calling me directly, which is against judicial ethics and shows the callous attitude of the persons like the petitioner to denigrate the Judiciary by their act, this Court was inclined to enhance the cost to Rs.

3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs).

11. However, before the close of business for the day, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contacted me over phone and when the whole sequence of incident was narrated to him, to which he was not oblivious, learned counsel for the petitioner pleaded that this Court may show some leniency over the petitioner by reducing the cost, as it was pleaded that the medical plight of the petitioner had made him to act in that manner. Though such a submission was made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, however, this Court, on an overall consideration of the entire episode, is not inclined to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that it was the medical plight of the petitioner that had made him to act in such a manner by asking certain persons to call me directly.

This Court even put it across to the learned counsel for the petitioner that more than harming the prestige and stature of the institution, the act of the petitioner is harming the stature of the counsel, which cannot be permitted as otherwise, emboldened, the petitioners would doubt each and every act of the counsel whom they have engaged.

that this Court may consider reducing the cost imposed on the petitioner considering the fact that he is suffering from blood cancer and is under treatment and the present pandemic situation is causing mental trauma, which had made him act in that fashion.

12. On an overall consideration of the entire matter, both the virtual court session as also the further telephonic conversations, this Court, considering the plea made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is inclined to reduce the cost from Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) to Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) of which Rs.1,00,000/- is the initial cost imposed on the petitioner and the balance Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) would be the cost towards the two telephonic conversations at the instance of the petitioner by two different persons.

13. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Coimbatore, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the concerned Judge and on further condition that:- (a) the petitioner shall shall pay a cost of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) to the Cancer Institute, Chennai, and produce the receipt of payment before the learned Magistrate at the time of his surrender.

(b) the petitioner and the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity.

(c) the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.00 a.m. for a period of two weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation.

(d) the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

(e) the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

(f) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji - Vs - State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560].

(g) If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229-A IPC.

-sd/- 30/07/2020 This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned TRUE COPY Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104.

TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, NO.VI, COIMBATORE.

2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VADAVALLI POLICE STATION, VADAVALLI, COIMBATORE, COIMBATORE DISTRICT.

4 THE SECRETARY CANCER INSTITUTE, CHENNAI.

CC to M/S. K.BALASUBRAMANIAM Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.10772/2020 Date :30/07/2020 cs 03/09/2020