PARAMESWARAN Vs. INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the 2nd Accused in Crime No.841 of 2012 on the file of the respondent police. Initially, the said case was registered under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. During the course of investigation, it was altered into one under Sections 304(1) and 304A of IPC. The petitioner was arrested by the respondent on 27.07.2012 and produced before the learned XVI Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, with a request for remanding him to judicial custody. In the request for remand itself, the respondent submitted to the court that the petitioner had been arrested only on the allegations that he had committed offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC. The petitioner, immediately after remand, filed a petition in M.P.No.3129 of 2012 seeking bail. The learned Magistrate ordered notice to the respondent. The respondent submitted a response before the learned Judicial Magistrate, in which, the respondent submitted that the petitioner is accused of an offence only under Section 304A of IPC and, therefore, the respondent had no objection for the grant of bail to the petitioner. It was argued before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the offence under Section 304A of IPC, for which the petitioner has been accused of and arrested, is bailable. It was also contended that since the offence is bailable, it is his right to come out on bail and the court has no discretion. But, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate by order dated 30.07.2012 dismissed the said petition on the ground that offence under Section 304(i) of IPC has also been mentioned in the alteration report and the said offence is triable exclusively by a Court of Sessions.

(2.) According to the petitioner, thereafter, he filed an application for bail before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, in Crl.M.p.No.7596 of 2012. That petition came up for hearing before the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai because the learned Principal Sessions Judge was not sitting on 01.08.2012. When the matter was taken up for hearing before the II Additional Sessions Judge on 02.08.2012, an Advocate by name Mr. R.C.Manoharan filed a petition seeking to intervene in the matter and opposed the grant of bail and the learned Additional Sessions Judge without passing any order has simply adjourned the matter to 03.08.2012. In those circumstances, the petitioner has rushed to this court with this original petition under Section 483 of Cr.P.C.

(3.) On representation made by Mr. N.R.Elango, the learned senior counsel before this court, the matter has been listed by way of lunch motion. When this matter was taken up at 2.15 p.m., the learned Additional Public Prosecutor wanted a pass-over of the matter to get instructions from the respondent police. Accordingly, the matter was taken up at 4.00 p.m. and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has got instructions from the respondent by the time. He has also produced the case diary for the inspection of the court. [After inspection it was returned to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor in the open court itself].