/2022 INSC 0190/
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 388 OF 2022
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL.) NO. 8438 OF 2021)
DEVADASSAN …APPELLANT
Versus
THE SECOND CLASS EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE,
RAMANATHAPURAM & ORS.           ...RESPONDENT(S)
JUDGMENT
J.K. Maheshwari, J .
Leave granted.
2.     Assailing  the  order  dated  22.7.2021 passed   in   Criminal
RC(MD) No. 379 of 2021 and Crl. MP (MD) No. 3829 of 2021 by
the   Madras   High   Court,   Madurai   Bench,   confirming     the   order
dated  13.5.2021  of   the   respondent   No.  1  in   MC   No.  95  of   2021
(A3),  the present appeal has been filed by the appellant.
3.     The   facts   in   brief   are,   the   respondent   No.   1   and   the
High   Court   found   the   appellant   guilty   for   breach   of   the
conditions of bond and punished him in exercise of power under
Section   122(1)(b)   of     the   Code   of   Criminal   Procedure   (in   short
“Cr.P.C.”).  The orders impugned indicate that the appellant was
1

indulged   in   criminal   activities,   however,   the   respondent   No.   1
after   notice   and   affording   opportunity,   passed   order   on
24.2.2021   under   Section   117   read   with   Section   110(e)   Cr.P.C..
In compliance, the appellant executed a bond to   maintain good
behaviour and peace for a period of one year and also undertook
to   pay   Rs.   50,000/­   as   penalty   to   the   Government   in   case   of
breach   or   else   face   the   proceedings   under   Section   122(1)(b)
Cr.P.C.  Even on execution of bond, he was found involved in an
offence   of   commission   of   murder,   registered   by   Uchipuli   Police
Station   as   Crime   No.   149   of   2021   under   Sections
147/148/342/302   read   with   109/120(B)   IPC.     The   respondent
No. 1 vide order dated 13.5.2021 found him guilty for breach of
bond however,   ordered his arrest and sent him  to the custody.
The   said   order   has   been   affirmed   by   the   High   Court,   however,
this appeal has been filed challenging both the orders.
4. Shri   A.   Lakshminarayanan,   learned   counsel   appearing
for   the   appellant   has   strenuously   urged   that   the   orders   passed
by   the   administrative   authorities   usually   do   not   follow   the
procedure   prescribed   and   afford   reasonable   opportunity.     The
High Court of Delhi in the case of  Aldanish vs. State of NCT of
2

Delhi   2018   SCC   online   Del   12207   issued   the   guidelines   to
impart training to these officers.   Reliance has also been placed
on   the   judgment   of   Madras   High   Court   in   the   case   of   Devi   vs.
Executive   Magistrate   (Mad   HC)   2020   SCC   online   Mad   2706,
wherein the  High Court taking a different view from the previous
judgment   directed   to   place   the   matter   before   Hon’ble   the   Chief
Justice   for   constituting   the   Division   Bench   to   hear   the   similar
issue.   Learned counsel has also placed reliance on a judgment
of  this  Court  in   Prem  Chand  vs.  Union  of India   (1981) 1 SCC
639   specifying   the   manner,   in   which   the   police   personnel   must
act   upon,   but   the   personal   liberty   cannot   be   put   into   peril   on
their   mercy.   Further,   placing   reliance   on   the   judgment   of   this
Court in the  case of   Gopalanachari  vs.   State  of Kerala   1980
(Supp) SCC 649, learned counsel emphasized the importance of
Article   21   of   the   Constitution   of   India   and   its   significance.     In
view   of   the   said   submissions,     imposition   of   conditions   in   the
bond without due enquiry and affording reasonable opportunity
is   wholly   unjustified,   and   appellant   cannot   be   held   guilty   and
may be sent to the custody unceremoniously.
3

5. On   the   other   hand,   Dr.   Joseph   Aristotle   S.,   learned
counsel   representing   the   respondents   contends   that   eight
criminal   cases   were   pending   against   the   appellant,   therefore
bond of good behaviour was taken in exercise of the power under
Section   117   Cr.P.C.   asking   security.     On   violation   of   the   said
bond,  by   virtue  of the  powers conferred under   Section  122(1)(b)
Cr.P.C.,   the   order   impugned   has   rightly   been   passed.       It   is
urged that Chapter VIII of Cr.P.C. confer powers to the Executive
Magistrate   for   taking   bond   to   keep   the   peace   and   security   for
good  behaviour  from   the   suspected   persons.  Appellant   gave   the
undertaking     on   breach   of   conditions  of   bond   due  to   which    he
may   be   dealt   with   as   per   Section   122(1)(b)   Cr.P.C.   Later,
appellant   was   found   involved   in   an   offence   of   commission   of
murder, however a show cause notice was issued fixing date for
appearance   on     7.5.2021.   In   the   reply   filed   by   appellant,
execution   of   the   bond   has   not   been   disputed   and   making   him
accused   in   a   murder   case   has   also   not   been   denied,   except   to
controvert that without  proving guilt, he may not be responsible
for   the   said   act.   The   competent   authority   affording   opportunity
to   the   appellant,   has   rightly   passed   the   order   on   13.5.2021   on
4

establishing   violation   of   the   terms   of   the     bond   executed   on
24.2.2021   by   the   appellant.     It   is   urged   procedure   as
contemplated   has   been   followed   by   the   respondents,   however,
interference   was   not   called   by   the   High   Court,   to   which
interference under Article 136 of Constitution  is not warranted.
6. After   hearing   learned   counsel   for   the   parties   and   on
perusal   of   record,   it   appears   that   from   2012   to   January,   2021,
eight   criminal   cases   were   registered   against   the   appellant,
including  of simple and  grievous hurt, theft and also under the
Arms Act.   After   the report received from the respondent No. 2,
a   show   cause   notice   was   issued   to   the   appellant   and     enquiry
was conducted by respondent No. 1.  In furtherance thereto, his
statement   was  recorded  and   the   response   had   also  been   taken.
The   respondent   No.   1   recorded   the   satisfaction   that   the
appellant   might   cause     breach   of   peace   in   the   locality,   however
directed him to furnish a bond to the sum of Rs. 50,000 without
surety       for   a   period   of   one   year   under   Section   117   Cr.P.C.,
failing   which   he   may   serve   the   imprisonment   under   Section
122(1)(a) Cr. P.C.  or in  case of breach of conditions, recourse of
Section   122(1)(b)     Cr.P.C.   may   be   taken.   The   contents   of   the
5

bond   executed   by   the   appellant     are   relevant   hence   reproduced
as under:
“MC No. 95/2021
  ORDER   MADE   U/S   117   CR.P.C.   READ   WITH   110(E)
CR.P.C.
This   case   was   initiated   in   the   court   of   2 nd
  Class
Magistrate   and   Tahsildar,   Ramanathapuram   on   the
basis of case registered in Uchipuli Police Station.   This
person   was   produced   before   this   Court   on   24.2.2021.
Enquiry  was conducted  in  the  court  and  the provisions
mentioned in show cause notice issued was explained to
DEVADHASAN   28/21,   S/O   DEIVENTHIRAN,
MARAVETTIVALASAI,   in   detail   statement   and
arguments of the parties were taken.
Considering   all   these   facts   and   the   information
received   from   inquiry,   this   Court   has   arrived   at   the
conclusion at the person Name Devadhasan 28/21, s/o
DEIVENTHIRAN is likely to create Breach of Peace in the
locality and therefore shall be bound u/s 117 Cr.P.C. by
using   a   bond   for   Rs.   50,000/­   without   sureties,   for   a
period of one year from.
Thus,   this   Court   of   Second   Class   Ex.   Magistrate
and   Tahsildar,   Ramanathapuram   hereby   ordered   to
execute   a   Bond   for   Rs.   50000/­   without   sureties,   for   a
period   of   1   year   from   24.2.2021   failing   which   he   shall
serve imprisonment for the above mentioned u/s 122(1)
(a)   in   case   of   breach   conditions   during   the   period   of
bond   the   individual   state   be   imprisonment   for   the
remaining period u/s 122 (1)(b).
Sd/­
Second Class Magistrate 
& Tahsildar
Ramanathapuram” 
7. After execution of bond,   on 31.3.2021 Crime No. 141 of
2021  was  registered  joining   the   appellant   as  co­accused  for   the
offences  under Sections 147/148/342/302 r/w 109/120(B) IPC
6

at P.S. Uchipuli, Ramanathapuram and breached the terms and
conditions of the  bond.  A show cause notice was issued asking
the     response   and   also   sought   appearance   of   appellant     before
the respondent No. 1 on 7.5.2021.  He submitted his explanation
and his statement was recorded.  The respondent No. 1 affording
opportunity     passed   the   order   on   13.5.2021   holding   the
appellant   guilty   for   violation   of   the   terms   and   conditions   of   the
bond     and     punished   under   Section   122(1)(b)   Cr.P.C.   In
pursuance of the order, he is arrested and sent to prison.  It is to
observe   that   Chapter   VIII   of   Cr.P.C.   confer   powers   to   the
Executive   Magistrate   to   take   bond   for   maintaining   security   and
for keeping the peace and good behaviour by the citizens. As per
Section   107   Cr.P.C,     on   receiving   the   information,   that   any
person is likely to commit a breach of peace or disturb the public
tranquility   or   to   do   any   wrongful   act,   the   Executive   Magistrate
may   have   power   to   show   cause   on   violation   of   the   terms   of   the
bond so executed for maintaining peace.   As per Section   108 of
Cr.P.C.,   similar   power   has   been   given   for   maintaining   the
security   for   good   behaviour   from   persons   disseminating
seditious matters. Similarly, to take security  for  good behaviour
7

from   suspected   persons   and   habitual   offenders,   powers   under
Sections   109   and   110   Cr.P.C.     have   been   conferred   upon   the
Executive Magistrate.  In the present case, the order was passed
under  Sections  111  and  117  Cr.P.C.  for  security.     On  violation,
recourse,   specified   under   Section   122   Cr.P.C.   is   permissible.
Therefore, the Legislature introduced the said Chapter conferring
powers   on     the   authorities   to   take   action   for   violation   of   peace
and   tranquility   in   public   order   by   the   citizens   of   the   locality,
otherwise,  by  following  the    procedure  as  prescribed, the  action
may be taken by the competent authority.
8. Learned   counsel   for   the   appellant   has     heavily   relied
upon   the   directions   issued   by   the   Delhi   High   Court   as   well   as
Madras   High   Court   in   the   cases   of   Aldanish   &   Devi   (supra)
emphasizing     in   general   that   the   administrative   officers   do   not
follow   the   procedure,   so   prescribed   and   also   relied   upon   the
judgment   of   Gopalanachari   (supra)   emphasizing     the
importance   of   Article   21   of   the   Constitution   of   India   affecting
personal   liberty   of   the   citizens.   But,   in   the   facts   of   the   case   at
hand, nothing has been brought on record that how and in what
manner   the   procedure   contemplated   under   Chapter   VIII   of
8

Cr.P.C. has not been followed.   It is a trite law that by following
the   procedure   established   by   law,   the   personal   liberty   of   the
citizens can be dealt with.  Looking to the facts of this case,  the
bond   executed     by   the   appellant   on   24.2.2021   under     Section
110 read with  Section 117 Cr.P.C.  has been  violated by  him  on
account   of   his   involvement   in   a   criminal   case,   registered
subsequently.       In   the   present   case,   the   bond   executed   by   the
appellant   has   not   been   questioned.     In   fact,   the   subsequent
action of passing the order dated 13.5.2021   sending him to the
custody due to   violation of the bond as per the mandate of law
has been assailed.   As per  the discussion made hereinabove, in
our considered opinion, the order passed by respondent No. 1 is
after   following   the   procedure,   so   prescribed   and   affording   due
opportunity   to   the   appellant.     The   High   Court   has   rightly
affirmed the said order. In the facts,  the argument advanced by
the   learned   counsel   for   the   appellant   cannot   be   countenanced.
9. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, we are of the
considered   view   that   the   orders     passed   by  the   High  Court   and
respondent No. 1 do not call for any interference.  Therefore, this
appeal  is bereft of any merit, hence dismissed.   
9

………………………….J.
[ INDIRA BANERJEE ]
       ....………………………J.
 [ J.K. MAHESHWARI ]
NEW DELHI;
MARCH 9, 2022.
10