Libertatem Magazine

Merely Because a Case Has Been Registered, It Cannot Be Said To Be Sufficient Ground To Prove Breach of Bond to the Satisfaction of Magistrate Without Hearing the Affected Party: Madras High Court

Contents of this Page


A Criminal Revision was filed under Section 395 read with 401 of CrPC challenging the order passed on 02.02.2021 on the file of the Sub Divisional Executive Magistrate and the Revenue Divisional Officer Tenkasi.

Facts of the Case

The Petitioner was frequently involved in criminal cases and a report was initiated by the Second Respondent, State Rep. by The Inspector of Police. The same was forwarded to the First Respondent, the Sub-Divisional Executive Magistrate for further action. After perusal of the records, the first Respondent had issued summons under Section 111 of CrPC and directed the Petitioner to execute a bond with sureties under Section 110 of CrPC for a period of one year for keeping peace and maintaining good behaviour.

However, after executing the bond on 31.12.2020 the Petitioner was again involved in a criminal offence, and on the complaint, a case was registered by the Police for the offence under Section 294(b), 392, and 506(2) of IPC. The Petitioner was arrested by the police and remanded to judicial custody. 

After consideration of the documents and statements of the Petitioner, the First Respondent passed the impugned order. Thus aggrieved by the order passed by the First Respondent, the Petitioner had filed this criminal revision.

Arguments before the Court

The Petitioner contended that the First Respondent didn’t provide a reasonable opportunity to defend the case before passing the order. Also, without giving reasonable opportunity to defend the case of the petitioner any order passed by the Executive Magistrate could be set aside. To support these the petitioner relied on cases Narain Sahai v. Emperor, Malathi v. State, etc. 

The Respondents had submitted that the First Respondent had rightly passed the impugned order and the Petitioner was a habitual offender and had six previous cases. They thus, pray for dismissal of this criminal revision.  

Court’s Observation

The Court had observed that a perusal of impugned order showed the non-application of mind of the First Respondent. Since a case had been registered against the Petitioner it could not be said to be sufficient ground to prove the breach of the bond to the satisfaction of the Magistrate that too without hearing the affected party. 

Section 122(1)(b) clearly stated that the executive magistrate shall give an opportunity to the Petitioner and apply his judicial mind and arrive at his satisfaction that the Petitioner had breached the security bond executed by him to keep good behaviour and he should also record the grounds of such proof. 

Thus according to Section 122(1)(b) the First Respondent must record his grounds of satisfaction and justify whether sufficient cause had been established. However, the same was not followed which is a complete non-application of mind. The 1st respondent had passed the impugned order mechanically.

The court relied on the case of Bala @ Balakrishnan and Administrative Executive Magistrate Trichy City and others, where the court had observed that if the satisfactory grounds were not recorded for proof it would be presumed that the detention authority sending a person to jail is arbitrary, mechanical, unfair, and unjust. The detention order had to disclose the grounds of proof otherwise the court could not see what had transpired in the mind of the Executive Magistrate in passing the detention order when these orders were revisable by the Sessions Judge. 

Court’s Decision

The court considering the facts of the above case had observed that the impugned order had not been passed in accordance with law and had been passed mechanically. From the legal position as referred, it was clear that the impugned order was passed without following the principles of natural justice and the same was liable to be set aside.

The Criminal Revision Petition was allowed and the impugned proceedings passed by the First Respondent on 02.02.2021 were set aside. The court had directed the Superintendent, Central Prison, Tirunelveli to set at liberty the revision Petitioner if his further detention was no longer required in connection with any other case or proceedings. 

Click here to view full judgment. is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the Court. Follow us on Google NewsInstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

About the Author