Madras High Court Sets Aside Bail Granted To Bhavninder Singh In Cheating Case By Actress Amala Paul

Asking Bhavninder to surrender before the Investigating Agency, Justice CV Karthikeyan observed that the bail order had impeded the investigation as it did not impose any conditions. The court added that if the orders are passed to scuttle further investigation, the entire criminal justice system will fail and fall.

“All these factors would point out that, the order granting bail had actually impeded the investigating agency from proceeding further. When any complaint is lodged raising an allegation of cognizable offence, it is only expected that investigation is completed within a reasonable period of time, but if orders are passed to scuttle further investigation, then the entire criminal justice system fails and falls. That should not happen,” the court observed.

Background

The actress, who is the de-facto complainant stated that she was in a relationship with Bhavninder and during this time, Bhavninder along with his family members had taken advantage of their association with the actress and cheated her, making her lose substantial amounts.

Bhavninder was thus charged with offences under Section 120(B), 465, 511, 467, 468, 471, 420, 406, 419, 379, 354(C), 384, 500, 506(2) of IPC and with Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act 200 and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act 2002. He was later granted bail by the Vanur Judicial Magistrate which was challenged by the actress in the present plea.

It was contended that the bail order was cryptic and no reasons were given as to why the bail was granted. It was contended that though documents were submitted and marked during the hearing of the bail plea, the same were not referred to in the order. The investigating agency also submitted that bail was granted without considering any objections.

The court noted that the Magistrate, while granting bail had noted that Bhavninder was in custody for a period of 7 days by which time the police would have completed investigation and the Magistrate thought it would be appropriate to grant bail.

The court observed that for the proper administration of justice, while deciding to grant or deny bail, the court should give the necessary reasons. The court noted that merely stating that the documents were perused was not sufficient.

“The parties must know why bail had been granted or why bail had been denied. The accused, the victim and the State must be in a position to understand and appreciate that discretion had been used and exercised in proper manner. It is not an order which, could be passed according to the whims and franchise of any Presiding Officer. It cannot be passed on perverse grounds. It cannot also be stated that having perused the documents, the Presiding Officer was of impression that bail should be granted or denied,” the court added.

The court also noted that while granting bail, the Magistrate had not imposed any conditions which impeded the investigating agency from proceeding further. The court noted that Bhavninder never appeared before the investigating agency and since he had the order of bail protecting him, his presence could not be demanded by the agency.

Thus, observing that the order of bail was to be interfered with, the court set aside the order and directed Bhavninder to surrender before the investigating agency, failing which, the agency was to take him into custody.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. S. Kaushik Ramasamy

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. R. Vinothraja Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side), Ms. V. Kamala Kumar

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 26

Case Title: Amala Paul v Deputy Superintendent of Police and another

Case No: Crl. O.P.No.24618 of 2022