Mr.Justice K.KALYANASUNDARAM and The Hon`ble Mrs.Justice T.KRISHNAVALLI CRL OP(MD) No.9104 of 2020. Full order Considering the submissions, as there are some confusion in Subordinate Courts regarding issuance of summons and warrants, to the absconding accused, a proper guideline has to be issued in this regard.for petitioner advt bar council selvam sir
[10/22, 12:31] Sekarreporter 1: BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
( Criminal Jurisdiction )
Monday, the Twelfth day of October Two Thousand Twenty
The Hon`ble Mr.Justice K.KALYANASUNDARAM
The Hon`ble Mrs.Justice T.KRISHNAVALLI
CRL OP(MD) No.9104 of 2020
W/O.THANGARAJ, 300, KALLAR SCHOOL STREET,
KARUNAKKAMUTHANPATTI, UTHAMAPALAYAM TALUK,
… PETITIONER(S) / ACCUSED
1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
UTHAMAPALAYAM POLICE STATION, THENI DISTRICT,
(CRIME NO. 147 OF 2020)
… RESPONDENT(S) / COMPLAINANT(S)
ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-
These Criminal Original Petitions have been filed by the petitioners
seeking anticipatory bail for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302,
120B, 109 of IPC., in Crime No.147 of 2020 on the file of the respondent Police.
2. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent
police submitted that the respondent police after completing investigation filed
final report before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Uthamapalayam the same is
pending for committal in P.R.C. No. 36 of 2000. Since the petitioners are
absconding, they were shown as absconding accused, thereafter, the petitioners
filed the present Criminal Original Petitions seeking anticipatory bail.
3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent
police further submitted that, after filing the final report, the learned
Judicial Magistrate, Uthamapalayam, instead of issuing Non-
Bailable warrant to the petitioners, only issued summons directing the
petitioners to appear before the Court on a particular date. He further
submitted that, since the petitioners are absconding for long time, the learned
Judicial Magistrate, Uthamapalayam ought to have issued Non-
Bailable warrant instead of issuing summons.
4. In this regard, this Court has called for explanation from the learned
Judicial Magistrate, Uthamapalayam, and the learned Magistrate has submitted his
detailed explanation referring to various Judgements rendered by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, justifying the issuance of summons at the first instance, and
stated that in the event of accused failed to appear on summons, then, bailable
or non-bailable warrant will be issued.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there are lot
of confusion in the subordinate Courts regarding the issuance of summons,
bailable and non-bailable warrants. In NDPS Act Cases, after the absconding
final report filed by the police, the trial Court released the accused on bail
by executing a bond under Section 88 of Cr.P.C., hence submitted that a proper
direction should be issued by this Court regarding the issue of summons,
bailable and non-bailable warrants.
[10/22, 12:31] Sekarreporter 1: 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in number of cases has held that, whenever the accused not
appearing before the trial Court, at the first instance only summons shall be
issued, if the accused failed to appear on summons, then, the Court below has
to issue bailable or non-bailable warrant. He has also referred various
Judgements to support his contention.
7. Considering the submissions, as there are some confusion in
Subordinate Courts regarding issuance of summons and warrants, to the absconding
accused, a proper guideline has to be issued in this regard.
8. Hence, Registry is directed to place these matters before the Hon’ble
Administrative Judge to place the matters before a Division Bench of this Court,
for an authoritative pronouncement in this issue.