2017 (9) TMI 2033 - HC - Indian Laws

Disregard to the judicial orders by police authorities - offences punishable under Sections 419, 170, 183, 186 and 120 B of the IPC - Re-arrest on the ground that petitioner was attempting to travel abroad without prior permission of the Metropolitan Magistrate, despite the judicial order directing his released on bail - HELD THAT - After his arrest in Crime No. 177 of 2016, the petitioner was directed to be released on bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, Mumbai, vide his order dated 8th September 2016 passed in Bail Application No. 1737 of 2016. It is seen from the said order that no condition prohibiting the petitioner to travel abroad or to seek permission of the concerned court while travelling abroad was imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge while releasing the petitioner on bail, during the pendency of the trial. It is not pointed out, that the State at any point of time, had challenged this order, or prayed to get it modified from the same court by imposing additional conditions against the petitioner restricting his travel to foreign countries. The Red Corner look out notice is not pertaining to some other crime but it is in respect of the very same crime bearing No. 177 of 2016. Once the petitioner is arrested in the said crime, red corner notice issued at some prior stage cannot be made use to re-arrest the petitioner, despite the judicial order directing his released on bail. The police, infact, committed breach of order releasing the petitioner on bail by re-arresting him on the pretext of the alleged Red Corner notice issued during investigation. Further illegality seems to have been committed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate while passing the order dated 19th August 2017 rejecting bail application filed by the petitioner after his re-arrest in pursuant to so called Red Corner notice by the police. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate committed error of law in holding that the petitioner ought to have sought permission of the Metropolitan Magistrate prior to travelling abroad. No such fetters were imposed on his liberty by the superior court while releasing the petitioner on bail on 8th September 2016. In this view of the matter, the impugned order dated 19th August 2017 cannot be sustained. The impugned order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrat is quashed and set aside - The petitioner should be released forthwith as he is on bail in pursuant to order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, Mumbai - petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Breach of judicial orders by police authorities regarding bail conditions and re-arrest based on a Red Corner notice.
2. Legality of re-arresting a petitioner granted bail without conditions restricting foreign travel.
3. Error in rejecting bail application based on the need for prior permission to travel abroad.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the petitioner, accused in a criminal case, who was granted bail without travel restrictions by the Additional Sessions Judge. The police re-arrested the petitioner based on a Red Corner notice, despite the bail order. The court noted the breach of the bail order by the police and the error in re-arresting the petitioner. The Red Corner notice was related to the same crime, and the court emphasized that it cannot be used to re-arrest the petitioner after bail was granted. The judgment highlighted the police's disregard for the judicial order by re-arresting the petitioner based on the notice.

Moreover, the court criticized the Metropolitan Magistrate for rejecting the bail application, citing the need for prior permission to travel abroad. The judgment emphasized that no such restriction was imposed by the superior court while granting bail. The court found the rejection of the bail application based on the travel restriction unjustified and illegal. It concluded that the impugned order was unsustainable and quashed it. The petitioner was directed to be released immediately based on the bail granted earlier by the Additional Sessions Judge without any travel restrictions.

In summary, the judgment addressed the breach of judicial orders by the police, the legality of re-arresting the petitioner granted bail, and the error in rejecting the bail application due to the absence of travel restrictions. The court emphasized the importance of upholding judicial orders and ensuring that bail conditions are not violated without proper legal grounds. The judgment provided a detailed analysis of the legal aspects involved in the case and highlighted the need for adherence to legal procedures and principles in such matters.