High court seeks report from magistrate who gave bail to Periyar University VC

High court seeks report from magistrate who gave bail to Periyar University VC

Chennai: Madras high court has called for a report from the magistrate who granted interim bail to Periyar University vice-chancellor R Jagannathan, who was arrested by Salem police on charges of floating a private company without prior consent of the government and for offences punishable under SC/ST Act.

Justice P Dhanabal passed the interim order on a plea moved by Salem police seeking to cancel the interim bail.

The issue pertains to an order passed by judicial magistrate II of Salem by rejecting the remand of Jagannathan who was arrested under Sections 294(b) (obscene acts), 120B (criminal conspiracy), 420 (cheating), 460 (trespass), 409 (criminal breach of trust) r/w.511, 506(1) (criminal intimidation) and 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Act.

According to the prosecution, the magistrate observed that the offences are punishable within 7 years and thereby, as per the judgment in the Arnesh Kumar and Satender Kumar Antil case, the procedures under section 41 of CrPC have to be followed.

But the magistrate failed to note that the offences punishable under section 409 is up to life and life means not less than 20 years. Since the offences under section 409 r/w 511 is punishable up to 10 years, the observation of the magistrate is erroneous, the prosecution said.

“The magistrate failed to consider the mandatory provisions of section 15-A of SC/ST (POA) Act. As per Section 15-A (3) of SC/AT (POA) Act, the victim or his dependent shall have the right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any court proceeding including any bail proceeding,” they added.

Recording the submissions, the court said, “In this context, the magistrate has recorded in the order that there is no allegation in respect of cheating or misappropriation and thereby the magistrate has not considered the section 409 r/w 511 IPC.”

Further the order was passed by the magistrate under section 59 of CrPC and as per section no person who has been arrested by a police officer shall be discharged except on his own bond, or on bail, or under the special order of magistrate, the court said.

In the present case also, the police have arrested the accused and then produced before the magistrate and thereby, the magistrate has passed the order under CrPC and not by invoking the SC/ST (POA) Act, the court added.

Since the magistrate has passed the order in detail, it is appropriate to call for a report from the magistrate and also to hear the police as well as the victim , the court said in its order.