Judgment:
Common Order:
P. Devadass, J.
1. As these two criminal revisions are concerned in the same crime number and they are spouses this common order is passed.
2. In Crl. M.P.No. 3561 of 2014, A2/Umamaheswari and A1/Hariharan were granted bail before jail, under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Certain conditions were imposed it includes appearance of the accused persons daily at 10 a.m., before the respondent police. They have complied. Subsequently, in Crl.M.P. No. 6647 of 2014 on 12.09.2014 the bail conditions completely relaxed with respect of A2/Umaheswari. Latter, the respondent Police filed Cr.M.P.No.4749 of 2014 to cancel the bail on the ground that they have not obeyed the bail condition, viz, they have not attended the police station, as per the bail order.
3. The learned Principal Sessions Judge noted down in his cancellation bail order in para 3, which reads as follows:-
TAMIL
Thus the learned Judge has cancelled the bail.
4. The Court is bound to provide them legal assistance. Some lawyers should have been engaged defend the accused. It is the duty of the every criminal court to provide legal assistance either by engaging an amicus curie or a legal aid counsel because the light of the lawyer is to drive away the darkness. Had the learned Principal Sessions Judge nominated a lawyer for their defence. The reality of the situation viz., the bail conditions already relaxed it should have been brought to the notice.
5. Further, there is no automatic cancellation of bail. Granting bail is different from cancelling the bail. Because both are based on different grounds. Even if an accused, who has been directed to appear before the police station or Court, as part of bail condition by the fact that he has absented, he cannot be fault with. Because there may be so many reasons for the accused that there might have some melancholy in his family or he might have fell sick or he might have been arrested in some other case or even due to poverty he has no money in his hand that has prevented him to go to the police station or even the defacto complainant or his opponent preventing him from obeying the bail condition by engaging some hooligans so that the bail conditions may not be observed and a bail can be cancelled.
6. Therefore, some opportunity should have been given before cancelling the bail order. Cancellation of bail order is a serious one. It is in the nature of withdrawing the liberty already given to a person. Principles of natural justice is very important. It is not found in any statute, but it is found in the heart of every human being. Judges are not exception to this. In this respect the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai seems to have passed order mechanically. He acted as motionless machine. No highly developed computer can replace a judge. Because the inanimate computer has no feeling or sense. Luckily, in pursuance of the impugned order, the accused persons are not arrested. So had providential escape. So they must intervene. These orders suffers from legality, propriety and regularity, when especially, the conditions are relaxed these types of order ought not to have passed.
7. In view of the above, these revisions are allowed. The anticipatory bail order cancelled in Cr.M.P. No. 4749 of 2014 is set aside. Consequently, anticipatory bail granted in Crl.M.P. No. 3561 of 2014 is revived. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Crl.R.Cs. Allowed - M.Ps. Closed.