"Will Have Serious Impact On The Judicial Institution": Madras High Court Denies Bail To Office Assistant Accused Of Stabbing Judicial Officer

"Such an attack has an impact on the institution at large and hence it has to be dealt with utmost seriousness. If the petitioner is granted bail at this stage, it will have a serious impact on the mind of the Judicial Officers who may not feel very comfortable issuing transfer orders or initiating disciplinary proceedings against their staff."

The accused Office Assistant was enraged due to a transfer order issued to him by transferring him to another court. This enraged him and he carried a knife with him and attempted to stab the Judicial Officer who issued the transfer order. He was charged with offenses under Sections 332, 324, and 307 IPC.

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the investigation was completed and that the police had already filed the final report. It was also submitted that the petitioner had already suffered incarceration for nearly 75 days. Hence, to effectively defend himself in the criminal case, it was necessary to grant him bail. The petitioner was willing to abide by any conditions imposed by the court.

The Government advocate, on the other hand, submitted that the issue involved was of a serious nature. He also informed the court that the matter is at the stage of committal and that the court may fix a time for completion of the case. He also contended that if the petitioner was granted bail, it would seriously impact the institution, and acts like these should not be taken lightly.

The court agreed with the above submissions. The court opined that while granting bail, it was necessary to consider the seriousness of the allegations. Thus, the court was not inclined to grant bail.

However, the court directed the Committal court to commit the matter to the concerned Sessions Court. The Sessions Court was directed to conduct the proceedings on day to day basis and complete the case within a period of six weeks. The court further directed the Sessions Court to decide the case purely on merit and in accordance with law and that the present order should not have any bearing on the outcome of the case.

Case Title: Prakash A v. The State represented by Inspector of Police

Case No: Crl O.P 11408 of 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 218

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. B. Mohan

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. S. Santhosh (Govt Advocate (Crl Side))