The Madras High Court has made it clear that an accused seeking regular bail for non-bailable offences should appear or surrender before the lower court for grant of the relief.
Justice R Suresh Kumar gave the ruling while rejecting a petition of Shema Priya and her mother Juliet Bernard, facing a criminal case, against a principal sessions judge's order refusing to grant bail to them as they did not surrender or appear before the lower court.
The judge, in a recent order, noted that the petitioners had originally moved an anticipatory bail before the high court and on its dismissal, preferred a special leave petition before the Supreme Court which was also rejected.
The apex court, however, gave them liberty to move for a regular bail under CrPc section 437.
The judge referred to CrPc section 437 (1), which states that when any person accused or suspected of any non-bailable offence is arrested or detained without warrant by an officer in charge of a police station or appears or is brought before a court other than the high court or court of session he may be released on bail.
He held that the words arrested or detained without warrant and the words, appears or brought before a court are to be strictly interpreted and necessarily to be followed or such a situation should have emerged before the court for consideration of grant of bail.
However, it was the stand of the petitioners that they would neither surrender nor appear before the lower court at the time of filing of the petition or during its hearing.
Because of this, the magistrate had refused to entertain the bail petition, Justice Suresh Kumar said adding therefore the decision cannot be said to be incorrect or illegal or without propriety.
The Principal Sessions Judge before whom the order of the magistrate was challenged was also correct and held that since the accused were not ready even to surrender before the lower court their plea to consider the bail cannot be entertained, the judge noted.
Rejecting the revision petition at the preliminary stage itself while settling the legal position, the judge said, "This court is of the firm view that the orders of the magistrate as well as the principal sessions judge, which are assailed herein do not suffer with any infirmity or illegality or any impropriety."
Petitioner Priya, employed with Sundaram Asset Management Company, was dismissed from service for allegedly sharing some confidential information with an outsider and also misusing the company funds.
A case was registered against Priya and her mother under Section 65 and 66 of the Information and Technology Act and various sections of IPC.
(This story has not been edited by Business Standard staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)