CHENNAI: “The legislature thought that by amending the provisions of the Act, crimes will come down and the country will march towards achieving social perspective and there will be equality. But, criminal cases are increasing day-by-day and trial proceedings are in a snail pace and that persons by taking advantage of the loopholes in law, are cheating people and come out on bail”, the Madras high court has said.
It was dismissing a bail petition from a white collar offender Sukash Chandrasekar alias Balaji, who along with his actor girlfriend was involved in multi-crore cheating cases. Dismissing the petition filed by Chandrasekar, Justice S. Vaidyanathan said, “The allegations against the petitioner are serious and a glance at the list of cases filed against him clearly shows that he is a habitual offender”.
Originally, on a complaint by an industrialist here alleging cheating by impersonation, Sukash was arrested. In 2014, the Alandur court granted him bail with stringent conditions including that he should not leave Tamil Nadu. However, Sukash escaped to Mumbai, flouted a chit company and cheated many people and he was arrested by Mumbai police. But, he obtained bail in this case also. Meanwhile, on a petition from the complainant, the bail granted by Alandur court was cancelled. When Sukash was about to be released from Mumbai prison, he was remanded by Alandur magistrate on a P.T.warrant on April 29 this year. Rejecting the contention that the petitioner was entitled to bail under 167 (2) of Cr.P.C as the charge sheet was not filed within the stipulated time, the judge said granting bail to an accused for the second time for the same offence, when he had flouted the order of the high court cannot be encouraged, as it will pave way for the accused to commit any number of offences, which was not the spirit of section 167 and Art.21 of the Constitution (Right to life and personal liberty).
Article 21 will apply to a person who was a law abiding citizen. The petitioner, having flouted the orders of the court cannot invoke Article 21 again. A person who has scant regard to the order of the court cannot say that he was entitled to bail under section 167 (2) automatically. That apart, this will apply to a person when the investigation was not completed at the first stage within time, say within 60 or 90 days depending upon the nature of offence. In the case on hand, powers have been exercised, but the petitioner without complying with the court order ran away to Mumbai, committed another offence there and was taken into custody by Mumbai police, wherein, he did not disclose the offence that he committed in Chennai. Suppressing the same, he got an order of bail for the offence committed there, which showed the clandestine attitude of the accused to come out on bail by hook or crook, the judge said.
