Misconduct, Abuse of process of Law and corruption prevailing in the District Judiciary of Tenkasi of Tamil Nadu
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.
But the High Court failed miserably to monitor the court of judicial magistrate to comply with the provision of section 529 of BNSS-2023 as these judicial officers are the blue eyes boys of the High Court.
Bloggers’ Comment
It is the Obligatory duty of the State High Court to supervise and monitor the district courts and magistrates’ courts but the officer appointed in the high court consider themselves above the law and these officers of the subordinate courts are the blue-eyed boys of the Stat High court and for the same the provision of the law as crafted in section 529 of the BNSS-2023 and provision of the repealed code of CrPC.,1973.
Even during the appeal, review, revision etc., the High Court is not complying with the provision of supervision and monitoring as crafted in the General Clauses Act. thus, endorsing the proverb ” “ADALATON KI HAR EK INTE PAISA MANGATI HAI” and ” YAHAN TO HAR KOI KHATE HAIN”
It has been seen and heard that some judges sitting in the High Court are operating the Paisa Vasooli Racket and the CJI of the court misguiding the domiciles of the state by saying that the lawyer and the public should prepare the report of the judges for the administration of justice but there is no machinery installed in the high court to call for the complaint as the Grievance Redressal Committee for the advocates etc. has not been implemented by the High court under a deep-rooted criminal conspiracy.