ORDER
M. Jeyapaul, J.
1. The State has preferred these criminal original petitions seeking cancellation of bail granted to the respondents/accused in Crl.M.P. Nos. 11534 and 11535 of 2005 in Crime No. 694 of 2005.
2. The respondents in both the criminal original petitions stand charged with the offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 109, 201(a) and 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The respondents in both the criminal original petitions move applications under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for bail on the ground that the investigation was over and chargesheet also was laid. Their judicial custody for more than 80 days was also projected before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu as ground for obtaining bail.
4. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu, accepting the plea of the respondents and rejecting the contention of the State, chose to grant bail to the respondents in both the criminal original petitions considering the fact that the chargesheet was already laid after completion of the investigation in a case where the accused had been in custody for more than 80 days.
5. The State has now preferred these criminal original petitions seeking cancellation of the bail granted to the respondents in both the criminal original petitions on the ground that the accused had committed this murder, misusing the liberty granted by virtue of the bail order granted in earlier murder cases.
6. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that the second, third, fifth and sixth respondents in Crl.O.P. No. 27068 of 2005 had already a murder case to their credit and that the respondent in Crl.O.P. No. 27069 of 2005 misusing the grant of bail in this case and having absented himself from appearing before the Court in terms of the order of bail, committed various offences and that therefore the bail granted to the respondents will have to be cancelled in the interest of justice.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the State cannot come out with a new plea before this Court. He would argue that this Court will have to see only whether there is any misuse of the liberty granted by the Sessions Court. It is his further submission that the non-compliance of the terms of the order of bail by the respondent in Crl.O.P. No. 27069 of 2005 after filing of these criminal original petitions seeking suspension could not be verified with the accused.
8. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu, was pleased to grant bail to the respondents in both the criminal original petitions as the respondents had been in custody for more than 80 days in a case where the chargesheet was laid after the investigation was completed. Of course, the State had putforth a plea that there is every chance for tampering with the evidence collected by the State. The said plea was rejected by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu.
9. If a petition is filed invoking the provision under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking cancellation of bail, the High Court or the Sessions Court concerned will have to see whether the accused misused his liberty or interfered with the course of investigation or attempted to tamper with the evidence collected or posed a threat to the witnesses on the side of investigation or attempted to flee from justice.
10. In the petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking to set aside the order passed by the Court concerned in order to secure the ends of justice, the High Court can go into the facts and circumstances which weighed the mind of the lower Court in granting bail.
11. Therefore the scope under Section 439(2) is found to be very limited compared to the vast inherent domain of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Even if the prayer in the petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is only for cancellation of the bail, it will have to be construed that the petition has been putforth before the High Court, seeking to set aside the order passed by the lower Court concerned in order to secure the ends of justice. Of course, the consequence of such an order will definitely result in cancellation of the bail.
12. It is true that the learned Public Prosecutor, who appeared before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu, had not brought to the notice of the Sessions Judge, the previous cases pending against the respondents. Even if there is failure on the part of the learned Public prosecutor in bringing to the notice of the Court which dealt with the bail application and consequently, an order of bail was granted to the undeserving accused who had many a criminal case to his credit, this Court, invoking the inherent domain, will have to necessarily interfere and set aside such an order if it is brought to the notice of this Court the criminal antecedents. This Court cannot shut its eyes when it is brought to its notice the liberty granted by the Sessions Court was misused by the accused.
13. In the above background, this Court will have to see whether the orders passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu, are liable to be set aside.
14. The State has now brought to the notice of this Court that the second respondent viz., Sakthi @ Sakthivel, the third respondent viz., Odi Saravanan, the fifth respondent viz., Kumaresan and the sixth respondent viz., Ayyanar in Crl.O.P. No. 27068 of 2005 have yet another case of murder to their credit. It appears the alleged murder in the instant case has been reportedly committed by the aforesaid respondents when they were enjoying the liberty on grant of bail by the Court concerned in those murder cases. Further, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the fifth respondent viz., Kumaresan has three other robbery cases and two other theft cases to his credit. Such persons, who had abused the liberty granted to them by virtue of the order of bail granted by the Sessions Court, cannot be permitted to loiter around to make the criminal judicial system a mockery.
15. As regards the first respondent viz., Anandan and the fourth respondent viz., Gopi in Crl.O.P. No. 27068 of 2005, it is found that they had no criminal antecedents, the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu has rightly exercised his discretion in their favour.
16. Coming to the contention of the State with regard to the respondent in Crl.O.P. No. 27069 of 2005, it is now placed on record that the respondent, having misused the liberty granted in the order of bail in the instant case of murder, chose to commit the offence under Section 307 and another offence under Section 386 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused had allegedly involved in two separate occurrences which culminated in registration of a case under the major offence under Section 307 and yet another case under the major offence under Section 386 of the Indian penal Code.
17. Having thoroughly verified with the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Trichy, the learned Government Advocate for the State submitted before this Court that the respondent in Crl.O.P. No. 27069 of 2005 had not complied with the order of bail granted to him in Crl.M.P. No. 11535 of 2005 during 11.1.2006 to 16.1.2006, from 21.1.2006 to 29.1.2006 and from 3.2.2006 to 14.2.2006. The direction found in the said bail order that the respondent in Crl.O.P. No. 27069 of 2005 shall appear before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Trichy, had not been complied with for the aforesaid period. There is no necessity to direct the State to approach the Sessions Court which passed the order of bail for cancellation for non-compliance of the order passed by it. This Court has ample co-ordinate jurisdiction under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Such a person cannot be permitted to enjoy the order of bail. As the liberty granted to the respondents in both the matters has allegedly tempted them to commit offence after offence, this Court will have to interfere and set aside the orders of bail passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu, to secure the ends of justice, with reference to the aforesaid respondents.
18. In the result, Crl.O.P. No. 27068 of 2005 as against the first respondent viz., Anandan and the fourth respondent viz., Gopi stands dismissed and the order of bail granted by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu in Crl.M.P. No. 11534 of 2005 to the second respondent viz., Sakthi @ Sakthivel, the third respondent viz., Odi Saravanan, the fifth respondent viz., Kumaresan and the sixth respondent viz., Ayyanar in Crl.O.P. No. 27068 of 2005 and the order of bail granted by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu in Crl.M.P. No. 11535 of 2005 to the respondent viz., Natarajan in Crl.O.P. No. 27069 of 2005 are set aside and the bail granted to them stand cancelled.