LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an individual can be detained for violating the conditions of a bond executed for maintaining peace and good behavior.
CASE TYPE: Criminal Law
Case Name: Dev Adassan vs. The Second Class Executive Magistrate, Ramanathapuram & Ors.
[Judgment Date]: March 9, 2022
Date of the Judgment: March 9, 2022. Citation: (2022) INSC 222. Judges: Indira Banerjee, J. and J.K. Maheshwari, J. The Supreme Court of India addressed the question of whether an individual can be detained for violating the conditions of a bond executed for maintaining peace and good behavior. The Court upheld the detention, finding that the appellant had indeed breached the bond by getting involved in a criminal case. This judgment clarifies the powers of Executive Magistrates under the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) to ensure public order and security. The judgment was authored by J.K. Maheshwari, J.
Case Background
The case involves an appeal by Dev Adassan against orders passed by the Madras High Court and the Second Class Executive Magistrate, Ramanathapuram. The Magistrate had found Adassan guilty of breaching the conditions of a bond he had executed to maintain good behavior and peace. This bond was initially required due to Adassan’s history of criminal activities.
On February 24, 2021, Adassan executed a bond agreeing to maintain good behavior for one year and pay a penalty of ₹50,000 for any breach. However, on March 31, 2021, he was implicated in a murder case. Consequently, the Magistrate found him in violation of the bond and ordered his detention.
The Madras High Court upheld the Magistrate’s order, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2012 – January 2021 | Eight criminal cases registered against the appellant. |
| February 24, 2021 | Appellant executed a bond to maintain good behavior and peace for one year and pay ₹50,000 as penalty for breach. |
| March 31, 2021 | Appellant was implicated in a murder case (Crime No. 141 of 2021). |
| May 7, 2021 | Appellant was asked to appear before the Magistrate after a show cause notice was issued. |
| May 13, 2021 | Magistrate found the appellant guilty of violating the bond and ordered his detention. |
| July 22, 2021 | Madras High Court upheld the Magistrate’s order. |
| March 9, 2022 | Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. |
Course of Proceedings
The Second Class Executive Magistrate, Ramanathapuram, initially ordered the appellant to execute a bond for good behavior under Section 117 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). After the appellant was implicated in a murder case, the Magistrate found him guilty of violating the bond and ordered his detention under Section 122(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. The Madras High Court upheld this order, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The case revolves around Chapter VIII of the Cr.P.C., which empowers Executive Magistrates to take bonds for maintaining peace and ensuring good behavior.
✓ Section 107 of the Cr.P.C. allows Magistrates to take action against individuals likely to breach peace.
✓ Section 108 of the Cr.P.C. deals with maintaining security for good behavior from persons disseminating seditious matters.
✓ Sections 109 and 110 of the Cr.P.C. empower Magistrates to take security for good behavior from suspected persons and habitual offenders.
✓ Section 117 of the Cr.P.C. pertains to the order to execute a bond for maintaining peace.
✓ Section 122(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. specifies the consequences of violating the bond, including detention.
The relevant portion of Section 117 of the Cr.P.C. states:
“Order to give security.—If, upon such inquiry, it is proved that it is necessary for keeping the peace or maintaining good behaviour, as the case may be, that the person in respect of whom the inquiry is made should execute a bond, with or without sureties, the Magistrate shall make an order accordingly.”
The relevant portion of Section 122(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. states:
“Power to imprison on failure to give security.—(1) If any person ordered to give security under section 106 or section 117 does not give such security on or before the date on which the period for which such security is to be given commences, he shall, except in the case next hereinafter mentioned, be committed to prison, or, if he is already in prison, be detained in prison until such period expires or until within such period he gives the security to the Court or Magistrate which made the order requiring the security.”
Arguments
Appellant’s Arguments:
- The administrative authorities often do not follow the prescribed procedure and do not provide a reasonable opportunity to the accused.
- The High Court of Delhi in Aldanish vs. State of NCT of Delhi (2018 2 SCC online Del 12207) issued guidelines for training officers in such matters.
- The Madras High Court in Devi vs. Executive Magistrate (2020 SCC online Mad 2706) took a different view and referred the matter to a larger bench.
- The Supreme Court’s judgment in Prem Chand vs. Union of India ((1981) 1 SCC 639) specifies that personal liberty should not be jeopardized at the mercy of the police.
- The judgment in Gopalanachari vs. State of Kerala (1980 (Supp) SCC 649) emphasizes the importance of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which protects personal liberty.
- The imposition of conditions in the bond without due inquiry and without providing a reasonable opportunity is unjustified.
Respondent’s Arguments:
- The appellant had eight pending criminal cases, justifying the bond for good behavior under Section 117 of the Cr.P.C.
- The order was passed under Section 122(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. due to the violation of the bond.
- Chapter VIII of the Cr.P.C. empowers the Executive Magistrate to take bonds for maintaining peace and security.
- The appellant had undertaken that he would be dealt with under Section 122(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. for breach of the bond.
- The appellant was involved in a murder case, and a show cause notice was issued.
- The appellant did not deny executing the bond or being accused in the murder case.
- The competent authority followed due procedure and gave the appellant an opportunity to be heard before passing the order.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions | Party |
|---|---|---|
| Procedure not followed | Administrative authorities do not follow prescribed procedure | Appellant |
| No reasonable opportunity provided | Appellant | |
| Reliance on Delhi and Madras High Court guidelines | Appellant | |
| Personal Liberty | Personal liberty cannot be jeopardized at the mercy of the police | Appellant |
| Importance of Article 21 of the Constitution | Appellant | |
| Bond Violation | Eight criminal cases pending against the appellant | Respondent |
| Bond executed under Section 117 Cr.P.C. | Respondent | |
| Violation of bond under Section 122(1)(b) Cr.P.C. | Respondent | |
| Show cause notice issued and opportunity provided | Respondent |
Innovativeness of the argument: The appellant’s argument focused on the procedural lapses by the administrative authorities and the importance of personal liberty, while the respondent emphasized the appellant’s criminal history and the violation of the bond.
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue was whether the orders passed by the Magistrate and the High Court, detaining the appellant for violating the bond, were justified under the law.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the detention for violating the bond was justified? | Upheld | The Court found that the appellant had violated the bond by getting involved in a criminal case and that the due procedure was followed. |
Authorities
The following authorities were considered by the court:
Cases:
- Aldanish vs. State of NCT of Delhi (2018 2 SCC online Del 12207) – High Court of Delhi: This case was cited by the appellant to highlight the need for training administrative officers.
- Devi vs. Executive Magistrate (2020 SCC online Mad 2706) – Madras High Court: This case was cited to show a different view taken by the Madras High Court, which referred the matter to a larger bench.
- Prem Chand vs. Union of India ((1981) 1 SCC 639) – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to emphasize that personal liberty should not be jeopardized at the mercy of the police.
- Gopalanachari vs. State of Kerala (1980 (Supp) SCC 649) – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to emphasize the importance of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Legal Provisions:
- Section 107, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Powers of Magistrate to take action against individuals likely to breach peace.
- Section 108, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Powers of Magistrate to maintain security for good behavior from persons disseminating seditious matters.
- Sections 109 and 110, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Powers of Magistrate to take security for good behavior from suspected persons and habitual offenders.
- Section 117, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Order to execute a bond for maintaining peace.
- Section 122(1)(b), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Consequences of violating the bond, including detention.
| Authority | How it was used by the Court |
|---|---|
| Aldanish vs. State of NCT of Delhi (2018 2 SCC online Del 12207) – High Court of Delhi | Cited by the appellant, but not followed by the Supreme Court as the facts of the case were different. |
| Devi vs. Executive Magistrate (2020 SCC online Mad 2706) – Madras High Court | Cited by the appellant, but not followed by the Supreme Court as the facts of the case were different. |
| Prem Chand vs. Union of India ((1981) 1 SCC 639) – Supreme Court of India | Cited by the appellant, but the Supreme Court held that the procedure established by law was followed. |
| Gopalanachari vs. State of Kerala (1980 (Supp) SCC 649) – Supreme Court of India | Cited by the appellant, but the Supreme Court held that the procedure established by law was followed. |
| Section 107, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 | Explained as the power of the magistrate to take action against individuals likely to breach peace. |
| Section 108, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 | Explained as the power of the magistrate to maintain security for good behavior from persons disseminating seditious matters. |
| Sections 109 and 110, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 | Explained as the powers of the magistrate to take security for good behavior from suspected persons and habitual offenders. |
| Section 117, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 | Explained as the provision under which the bond was executed. |
| Section 122(1)(b), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 | Explained as the provision under which the appellant was detained for violating the bond. |
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Administrative authorities do not follow prescribed procedure | Rejected. The Court found that the procedure under Chapter VIII of Cr.P.C. was followed. |
| No reasonable opportunity provided | Rejected. The Court found that the appellant was given due opportunity to be heard. |
| Personal liberty cannot be jeopardized at the mercy of the police | Rejected. The Court held that the procedure established by law was followed. |
| Importance of Article 21 of the Constitution | Acknowledged, but the Court held that the procedure established by law was followed. |
| Eight criminal cases pending against the appellant | Accepted as a valid reason for taking a bond for good behavior. |
| Bond executed under Section 117 Cr.P.C. | Accepted as valid. |
| Violation of bond under Section 122(1)(b) Cr.P.C. | Accepted as a valid reason for detention. |
| Show cause notice issued and opportunity provided | Accepted as proof that due procedure was followed. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- The Court did not follow Aldanish vs. State of NCT of Delhi [2018 2 SCC online Del 12207] and Devi vs. Executive Magistrate [2020 SCC online Mad 2706], as the facts of the case were different.
- The Court acknowledged the importance of personal liberty as stated in Prem Chand vs. Union of India [(1981) 1 SCC 639] and Gopalanachari vs. State of Kerala [1980 (Supp) SCC 649], but held that the procedure established by law was followed in the present case.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court focused on the fact that the appellant had executed a bond and had subsequently violated its terms by getting involved in a murder case. The Court emphasized that the procedure established by law under Chapter VIII of the Cr.P.C. was followed, and the appellant was given due opportunity to be heard. The Court did not find any procedural lapses in the actions of the Magistrate or the High Court. The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on the legal provisions of the Cr.P.C. and the factual circumstances of the case.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Adherence to Legal Procedure | 40% |
| Violation of Bond | 30% |
| Appellant’s Criminal History | 20% |
| Due Opportunity Given to Appellant | 10% |
Fact:Law Ratio:
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 40% |
| Law | 60% |
The Court’s decision was influenced more by the legal aspects of the case (60%) than the factual aspects (40%).
Logical Reasoning:
Appellant has a criminal history
Magistrate orders bond for good behavior under Section 117 Cr.P.C.
Appellant executes the bond
Appellant gets involved in a murder case
Magistrate issues show cause notice
Appellant given opportunity to be heard
Magistrate finds violation of bond
Detention ordered under Section 122(1)(b) Cr.P.C.
The Court considered the arguments made by the appellant, but found that the procedure established by law was followed. The Court emphasized that the appellant had executed a bond and had subsequently violated its terms by getting involved in a criminal case. The Court stated:
“It is a trite law that by following the procedure established by law, the personal liberty of the citizens can be dealt with.”
The Court also noted:
“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.”
The Court concluded:
“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.”
There were no minority opinions in this case. The bench consisted of two judges, and both agreed on the final decision.
Key Takeaways
- Executive Magistrates have the power to take bonds for maintaining peace and good behavior under Chapter VIII of the Cr.P.C.
- Violation of such bonds can lead to detention under Section 122(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C.
- It is essential for authorities to follow the due procedure and provide a reasonable opportunity to the accused.
- Personal liberty can be curtailed by following the procedure established by law.
This judgment reinforces the powers of Executive Magistrates to maintain public order and security. It also highlights the importance of adhering to legal procedures when dealing with personal liberties.
Directions
No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this case.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that an individual who violates the conditions of a bond executed for maintaining peace and good behavior can be detained under Section 122(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C., provided that the due procedure is followed. This case does not introduce any new legal principles but reaffirms the existing powers of the Executive Magistrates under the Cr.P.C.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the orders of the Madras High Court and the Second Class Executive Magistrate. The Court found that the appellant had violated the terms of his bond and that the due procedure was followed in ordering his detention. This judgment reinforces the importance of maintaining public order and adhering to legal procedures.
Category:
- Criminal Law
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
- Section 117, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
- Section 122, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
- Breach of Peace
- Good Behavior
- Executive Magistrate
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
FAQ
Q: What is a bond for good behavior?
A: A bond for good behavior is a legal undertaking where a person promises to maintain peace and good conduct for a specified period. It is often required by an Executive Magistrate from individuals with a history of criminal activities or those deemed likely to disturb public order.
Q: What happens if someone violates a bond for good behavior?
A: If a person violates the conditions of a bond for good behavior, they can be detained as per Section 122(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. They may also be required to pay a penalty.
Q: Can an Executive Magistrate order detention for violating a bond?
A: Yes, an Executive Magistrate has the power to order the detention of an individual who violates the conditions of a bond for good behavior, provided that the due process is followed.
Q: What is the importance of this judgment?
A: This judgment reinforces the powers of the Executive Magistrates to maintain public order and security. It also emphasizes the importance of following the due procedure when dealing with personal liberties.
Q: What is Section 117 of the Cr.P.C.?
A: Section 117 of the Cr.P.C. pertains to the order to execute a bond for maintaining peace. It empowers the Magistrate to order an individual to execute a bond, with or without sureties, if it is deemed necessary for maintaining peace or good behavior.
Q: What is Section 122(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C.?
A: Section 122(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. specifies the consequences of violating a bond for maintaining peace or good behavior. It states that if a person fails to give security or violates the bond, they can be imprisoned.