The Madras High Court has revoked the bail previously granted to Bhavninder Singh, the former partner of actress Amala Paul, in connection to a cheating case filed against him by the actress.

Justice CV Karthikeyan has instructed Bhavninder to surrender before the Investigating Agency, highlighting that the previous bail order lacked necessary conditions and hindered the ongoing investigation. The court emphasized that passing orders to obstruct further investigation could undermine the integrity of the entire criminal justice system, leading to its failure.

Case Brief:

The actress, serving as the de-facto complainant, asserted that she was in a relationship with Bhavninder. Throughout this period, Bhavninder, along with his family members, allegedly exploited their connection with the actress and engaged in fraudulent activities, leading to significant financial losses for her.

Bhavninder faced a range of charges under Sections 120(B), 465, 511, 467, 468, 471, 420, 406, 419, 379, 354(C), 384, 500, and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act 2000 and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act 2002. Subsequently, he secured bail from the Vanur Judicial Magistrate, a decision contested by the actress in the ongoing legal proceedings.

The argument put forth was that the bail order lacked clarity, providing no explicit reasons for the granted bail. The contention further stated that, despite the submission and marking of pertinent documents during the bail plea hearing, the order did not reference or consider them. Additionally, the investigating agency pointed out that the bail had been granted without due consideration of any objections raised during the proceedings.

The court acknowledged that the Magistrate, in the bail grant, had taken into account the fact that Bhavninder had been in custody for a period of 7 days. The Magistrate believed that within this duration, the police would have concluded their investigation, leading to the decision that granting bail would be appropriate under the circumstances.

The court emphasized that, for the effective administration of justice, it is imperative for the court to provide adequate reasons when deciding whether to grant or deny bail. The observation highlighted that a mere mention of perusing documents without offering substantive reasons was deemed insufficient in this context.

The court further observed that the magistrate, in granting bail, had failed to impose any conditions, hindering the investigating agency's ability to progress with the case. It was noted that Bhavninder, under the protection of the bail order, had not presented himself before the investigating agency, making it difficult for the agency to demand his presence for further proceedings.

Therefore, recognizing the need for intervention in the bail order, the court nullified the decision and instructed Bhavninder to surrender to the investigating agency. In the event of non-compliance, the agency was authorized to take him into custody.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. S. Kaushik Ramasamy

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. R. Vinothraja Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side), Ms. V. Kamala Kumar