No Necessity To Call Upon Accused To File Counter In Extension Application, Presence Only Needed To Consider Objections: Madras HC

Justice Sunder Mohan emphasized that while considering the application for extension, the court was only required to consider whether the report of the prosecutor satisfied the twin conditions – that there was appreciable progress in the investigation and that there are compelling reasons to justify further detention pending investigation.

“The presence of the accused is only to inform him about the extension of period and consider his objections, if any. Therefore, there is no necessity to call upon the accused to file a counter in the said application. All that the Court is required to consider is whether the report of the Public Prosecutor satisfies the twin requirements,” the court said.

The court was hearing a batch of pleas by accused persons whose application for statutory bail was rejected by the trial court. The petitioners argued that their indefeasible right to statutory bail would accrue on the expiry pf the statutory period and in spite of the pendency of the extension application, they were entitled to bail.

The Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the pleas and argued that the applications for extension were filed much before the statutory period for filing the final report. The APP argued that the delay on the part of the judge in considering the applications could not be put against the prosecution.

Upon perusal of the documents, the court noted that the applications were filed before the expiry of the statutory period. The court however noted that the application for statutory bail was not considered along with the application for extension which was in violation of the directions of the Constitutional bench of the Supreme Court.

The court remarked that the trial court was expected to follow the directions laid down by the Supreme Court and consider the application for extension at the earliest and not later than 7 days. In the present cases, the court noted that the trial court had not disposed of the extension application and bail application together and also failed to consider the extension application in an expeditious manner. Thus, the court held that the accused was entitled to statutory bail.

In other cases, the court noted that the prosecutor had merely stated that the accused were absconding. The court remarked that the reasons given by the Public Prosecutor must be specific and compelling to justify further detention.

Thus, the court was inclined to allow the applications and ordered the accused to be released on bail upon conditions.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. A. Rajamohamed, Mr. A. Samson, Mr. M. G. Martin Manivannan for C. M. Ramakrishnan

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. E. Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 469

Case Title: Mohamed Asaruthin v State of Tamil Nadu

Case No: Crl.R.C.Nos.1847, 1885, 1849 and 2002 of 2024