R. RATHINAM versus STATE BY DSP, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, MADURAI DISTRICT, MADURAI AND ANR.

Citation: [2000] 1 S.C.R. 718 · Decided: 08-02-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
R. RATHINAM 
v. 
STATE BY DSP, DISTRKI CRIME BRANCH, 
MADURAI DISTRICT, MADURAI AND ANR. 
FEBRUARY 8, 2000 
(K.T. THOMAS AND D.P. MOHAPATRA, JJ.] 
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973/Constitution of India: Section 439/Ar-
ticle 136--Baif-Single Judge of High Court granted bail to certain accused 
C persons-Petition moved by a group of practising Advocates before Chief Jus-
tice of the High Court seeking initiation of suo mo tu proceedingl· for cancel-
lation of baif-Also prayed for posting of the petitions before a Division Bench 
of the High Court-Matter placed before the Division Bench-Division Bench 
refused to exercise suo motu power on the ground of non-maintainability of 
D the petitions presented by the Advocatel--On appeal, Held: Neither any prac-
tising Advocate who had nothing to do with the particular case nor any other 
person can challenge the order of the Single Judge by moving the same High 
Court subsequently--Only remedy available was to move the Supreme Court 
under Article 136. 
E 
Power of cancellation of bail under Section 439 (2) can also be 
exercised by High Court suo motu--Petition before the High Court seeking 
exercise of suo motu powers in a particular case can be presented by any 
member of the public-Division Bench med in refusing to exercise suo motu 
powers on the ground of non- maintainability. 
F 
Prerogative vf Chief Justice-Distribution of Business in the High 
Court-CJ1ief Justice empowered to allot cases to Single Judge or a Division 
Benclr--All matters which can be heard and decided by Single Judge can also 
be heard and decided by Division Bench but not vice versa. 
In 1997, a massacre took place wherein six persons of a Scheduled 
G Caste community were killed. Police arrested 34 persons in this connection 
who were, initially, not released on bail. After abou't 9-10 months, upto 30 
persons ilmong them were released on bail. The brother of one of the 
deceased, alongwith some other persons, requested the Chief Minister to 
take steps to move the High Court for cancellation of bail of the said 
H accused persons. The Government not responding, the appellant, a prac-
718 
R. RA THINAM v. STATE BY DSP, DI~TI. CRIME BRA'\JCH MADL RAJ 
719 
tising Advocate alongwith his other colleagues filed petitions before the A 
Chief Justice of the Madras High Court for cancellation of bail granted to 
the said persons and placing of the said matter before a Division Bench 
of the High Court for consideration. On the Chief Justice's direction the 
matter was placed before a Division Bench of the High Court. The Division 
Bench held that the petitions moved before the Chief Justice were not 
maintainable as the statutory remedy, by way of application for cancella· 
tion of bail before the High Court, was available to the aggrieved party. 
Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
B 
c 
HELD 1.1. The frame of sub-section (2) of Section 439 Cr.P.C. 
indicates that it is a power conferred on the Sessions Courts and the High 
Courts. Exercise of that power is not banned on the premise that bail was 
earlier granted by the High Court on judicial consideration. In fact the 
power can be exercised only in respect of a person who was released un D 
bail by an order already passed. There is nothing tu indicate that the said 
power can be exercised only if the State or investigating agency ur even a 
public prosecutor moves for it by a petition. The power so vested in the 
High Court can be invoked by the State or by any aggrieved party. The 
said power can be exercised suo motu by the High Court. If so, any member 
of the public, whether he belongs to any particular profession or otherwise, 
who has concern in the matter can move the High Court to remind it of 
the need to invoke the said power suo motu. There is no barrier either in 
Section 439 Cr.P.C. or in any other law which inhibits a person from 
moving the High Court to have such powers exercisedsuo motu. If the High 
Court considers that there is no need to cancel the bail for the reasons 
stated in such petition, after making such considerations it is open for the 
High Court to dismiss the petition. If that is the position, it is also open 
to the High Court to cancel the bail if the High Court feels that the reasons 
stated in the petition are sufficient enough for doing so. It is, therefore, 
improper to refuse to look into the matter on the premise that such a 
E 
F 
petition is not maintainable in law. [722-D-G; 723-A-

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