P.K. SHAJI @ THAMMANAM SHAJI versus STATE OF KERALA

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 840 · Decided: 27-10-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
P.K. SHAJI @ THAMMANAM SHAJI 
v. 
STA TE OF KERALA 
OCTOBER 27, 2005 
B 
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND B.N. SRJKRISHNA, JJ.) 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
Section 439-Bail granted by Court of Session-Cancellation of by 
C Magistrate-Held, since order granting bail empowered the Magistrate to 
pass appropriate orders on failure of accused to comply with the directions, 
order of Magistrate is legal and valid. 
In a case registered against the appellant under Sections 1208 and 307 
D IPC, he was granted bail by the Court of Session with the conditions, inter 
alia, that he would make himself available for interrogation before the 
Investigating Officer on the specified time and days, failing which the 
Magistrate would take appropriate action as if the conditions were imposed 
by the Magistrate himself. Subsequently the Investigating Officer reported 
to the Magistrate that the accused did not comply with the conditions. The 
E Magistrate issued notice to the accused and not being satisfied by his reply 
cancelled the bail. Revision of the accused was dismissed by the High Court. 
F 
In the appeal filed by the accused, it was contended that since the bail 
was granted by the Court of Session, that Court or High Court had power to 
cancel the bail and not the Magistrate. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: The bail was granted by the Court of Session under Section 439 
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The order shows that the Magistrate 
ha~ been empowered to consider the question of violation of any of the 
G conditions imposed therein and to pass appropriate orders. The superior court 
can always give directions of this nature. When there is a specific direction 
to pass appropriate orders as if the conditions for granting bail had been 
imposed by the Magistrate himself, the impugned order is legal and valid. 
1842-D; 843-B, CJ 
... H 
840 
;. 
PK Sl-IAJl@THAMMANAM SHAJI r. STATE OF KERALA (BALAKRISHNAN,l] 
84 J 
Gurdev Singh and Anr. v. State of Bihar and Anr., (2000) 4 Crimes 103 A 
AIR (2000) SC 3556, cited. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1476 of 
2005. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.2.2003 of the Kerala High Court B 
in Crl.A. No. 210 of2003. 
Haris Beeran for Mis. Lawyer's Knit & Co. for the Appellant. 
Ramesh Babu M.R. for the Respondent. 
c 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, J. Leave granted. 
The appellant challenges the order passed by a learned Single Judge of 
the High Court of Keral.a. The appellant was involved in a case registered by D 
the Thrikkakara Police Station for the offences under Section 120B and 307 
!PC He was granted bail by the Sessions Court subject to certain conditions, 
one of which was that he should execute a bond for Rs. 50,000/- with two 
solvent sureties. He was also directed to make himself available for interrcigation 
before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays and Fridays between I 0 a.m. 
to 12.00 noon and was further directed that except for this purpose he shall E 
not enter the sessions division of Ernakulam until further orders without prior 
permission of the learned Magistrate. Lastly, the Sessions Court directed that 
the Investigiiting Officer shall scrupulously ensure that the appellant complied 
with all the conditions imposed therein and shall report to the Magistrate in 
case of any breach of conditions and the Magistrate shall take appropriate F 
action as if the conditions have been imposed by the Magistrate himself. 
Subsequent to the passing of the bail order, the appellant herein executed 
bail bonds before the Magistrate and was released on bail. The Investigating 
Officer filed a report before the learned Magistrate alleging that the appellant 
herein did not comply with the conditions as he had failed to report before G 
the Investigating Officer on all Mondays and Fridays. Pursuant to this report, 
learned Magistrate issued a notice and the learned Counsel entered appearance 
and submitted that the appellant apprehended assault at the hands of the 
police and, therefore, he did not report before the Investigating Officer. The 
learned Magistrate was not satisfied with the explanation given by the learned 
Counsel for the appellant and he cancelled the bail granted to the appellant. H 
842 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
. A Aggrieved by the same, the appellant preferred a revision before the High 
Court and the same was dismissed by the impugned Order. 
It is conte

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.