Madras HC: Accused entitled to benefit, protection of law

CHENNAI: Slamming the “mechanical and blindfolded” approach of lower court judges while handling bail matters, the Madras high court has said however wicked a person may be, he’s entitled to the protection and benefit of law. The court said people arrested for bailable offences are entitled to bail as a matter of right.
“Magistrates and sessions judges who deal with bails must bear in mind that liberty of individuals is in their hands.Just because a man is involved in a criminal case, it does not denude him of his basic freedom and statutory rights,” Justice P Devadas said on Tuesday.
The judge was passing orders on the bail plea of Sathya, who is in jail since February 26, though he faced only a bailable offence of attempting to harbour an offender wanted in a murder case. According to the Vellore police, one G G Ramesh was murdered by an armed gang on April 19, 2013. They arrested Sathya because he allegedly helped the killer, Sasikumar, to escape on his bike.
He was slapped with a case under Section 212 (harbouring an offender) of the IPC read with Section 302 (murder) IPC.
Though it was a bailable offence, which could have been heard by a magistrate, the district sessions judge took up the matter and denied bail to Sathya.
Justice Devadas said: “It is basic and elementary fact that for an offence under Section 212, a magistrate is entitled to grant bail. Neither he nor the sessions judge need to be alarmed by reading Section 302, together with an offence under Section 212…Sessions judge seems to have frightened because of Section 212 was read with Section 302.”
Noting that judges should remain focused on specific charges levelled against particular accused, Justice Devadas said, “He need not have been carried away by it (Section 302). He should consider only the language of the law, and nothing else. In this case, an offence under Section 212 alone will apply. Adding this with Section 302 and reading them together is like adding flavour.”
Reiterating that an offence under Section 212 should have been treated as a bailable offence, the judge lamented that in this case Sathya was in jail “not in accordance with the procedure established by law. His detention after denial of bail is against law.”
The judge said both judges and lawyers are duty-bound to deal with the accused only in accordance with law. “It is their constitutional duty,” he said, adding that they should bail out those accused who are incarcerated in bailable offences.
He then ordered immediate release of Sathya and asked him to execute an own bond for Rs 5,000.