(Prayer: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 415(2) BNSS to call for the records and set aside the conviction imposed against the appellant in judgment dated 08.10.2024 made in S.C.No.96 of 2016, on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge (PCR), Tirunelveli by allowing this Criminal Appeal.

Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 415(2) BNSS (Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., to call for the records and set aside the conviction imposed against the appellant in judgment dated 08.10.2024 made in S.C.No.96 of 2016, on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge (PCR), Tirunelveli by allowing this Criminal Appeal.

Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 415(2) BNSS (Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., to call for the records and set aside the conviction imposed against the appellant in judgment dated 08.10.2024 made in S.C.No.96 of 2016, on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge (PCR), Tirunelveli by allowing this Criminal Appeal.)

Common Judgment:

G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, J.

1. These appeals are directed as against the Judgment passed in S.C.No.96 of 2016, dated 08.10.2024 by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Tirunelveli.

2. The case of the prosecution is that, the injured is the President of the North Thalaiyuthu Panchayat and belongs to the Hindu Arunthathiyar Community. As a result, many of the ward members of the Panchayat Board were displeased with her. She is staying away from her office and would travel there by auto. While being so, on 13.06.2011 at about 10.00 p.m., after finishing her work, she returned home in an auto bearing Registration No.TN-72-AC-4158, which was driven by one Valathi, along with one Sarpudin. Upon reaching her village, the accused persons, armed with sickles and wooden logs, way-laid the auto and indiscriminately attacked the injured/complainant, while the auto driver and Sarpudin attempted to shout for help but were intimidated by the accused. As a result, they ran away from the scene of occurrence. Immediately, the injured was taken to the Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital, where she was in a critical, dying condition. Her dyding declaration was recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Tirunelveli.

3. Based on the complaint, respondent registered an FIR in Cr.No.213 of 2011 for the offences punishable under Sections, 341, 294(b), 323, 324, 307 of IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2022. The investigation revealed that all the accused individuals belong to a different community, while the injured belongs to the SC/ST community. As a result, the case was transferred to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli. After completing the investigation, a final report was filed, charging the accused with offences punishable under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 324, and 307 of the IPC, Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Harassment of Women Act, 2002, and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. The trial court took cognizance and charged accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offences punishable under Section 341, 307 r/w 34 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(x), 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act and accused Nos.5 to 8 for the offences punishable under Section 307 r/w 34 of the IPC, Section 3(1)(x), 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act.

4. In order to bring the charges to home, the prosecution had examined P.W.1 to P.W.18 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.28. On the side of the accused no one was examined and no document was produced. The prosecution produced material objects M.O.1 to M.O.5.

5. On perusal of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the accused Nos.2 & 3 are not found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 307 r/w 149 r/w 34 of IPC, 3(1)(x) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act and acquitted them. A7 is not found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act and 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act and A8 is not found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act.

6. A1, A4, A5, A6 were convicted and sentenced to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 341 IPC; they were convicted and sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, in default, to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence punishable under Section 307 r/w 149 r/w 34 of IPC and they were convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act and they were convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years for the offence punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act and further they were sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 4 of TNPWH Act.

7. A7 was convicted and sentenced to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 341 IPC; he was sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, in default, to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence punishable under Section 307 r/w 149 r/w 34 of IPC and further he was convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years for the offence punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act.

8. A8 was convicted and sentenced to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 341 IPC; he was convicted and sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, in default, to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence punishable under Section 307 r/w 149 r/w 34 of IPC and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 4 of TNPWH Act. During trial, 9th accused died and all the charges are abated as against the 9th accused.

9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the injured, who deposed as P.W.2, was immediately taken to the Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital by her brother after the occurrence. He stated before the doctor that she was assaulted by one un-known person on 13.06.2011 at about 09.00 p.m., near North Thalaiyuthu. The prosecution failed to examine Gunasekaran, the brother of the injured, who had brought the injured to the hospital. Subsequently, P.W.1 gathered information and lodged a complaint on 14.06.2011 at around 7:00 a.m. Therefore, P.W.1 could not have witnessed the occurrence and is not an eye witness to the occurrence. P.W.4, who provided the information, turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. As a result, the evidence of P.W.1 becomes doubtful. Furthermore, there was a delay in lodging the complaint, as the incident occurred on 13.06.2011 at approximately 9:00 p.m., but the complaint was only filed on 14.06.2011 at around 7:00 a.m. The FIR subsequently reached the Court at about 3:00 p.m. This delay was not properly explained by the prosecution. The FIR states that the injured person was attacked by four identifiable persons, out of four persons, one person belongs to Keelathenkalam, while the other accused persons to Thalaiyoothu village. Subsequently, the dying declaration of the injured was recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. IV, Tirunelveli. However, since the injured person subsequently survived the injuries, her statement should have been treated as a statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to mark the statement before the trial court, as required. There is no allegation of participation by the present accused. Subsequently, another statement was recorded from the injured under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., in which she introduced new accused persons. While deposing before the trial court, she further improved her statement and described specific overt acts attributed to all the accused persons. The injured had taken four versions, which she also admitted during cross-examination. She further admitted that the accused persons were only implicated after political party leaders agitated the matter, leading to the deletion of the original accused in the final report. Apart from the injured witness, no other witnesses supported the case of the prosecution to corroborate P.W.2's evidence. P.W.3, who accompanied the injured, also turned hostile. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to prove the charge under Section 149 of the IPC in accordance with the law. The prosecution also failed to prove the charge under Section 34 of the IPC. The doctor who recorded the Accident Register, P.W.16, deposed that the injured was unconscious, and her brother stated that an unknown person had assaulted her on 13.06.2011 at about 09:00 p.m. The injured was found to have sustained 12 injuries. The injured was admitted as an inpatient, and injuries Nos. 3 to 8 were declared grievous, while injuries Nos. 1, 2, and 9 to 12 were classified as simple in nature. The wound certificate was marked as Ex.P16. Initially, the injured stated that she was assaulted by an unknown person; however, she later named several accused persons and falsely implicated them. The prosecution failed to examine any independent witnesses to corroborate the testimony of P.W.2. Her evidence is unreliable due to contradictions, exaggerations, and subsequent improvements. Therefore, the trial court's conviction of the accused was based solely on assumptions, as the prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubts. The injured categorically deposed that one Meeran used to abuse her and that he was the mastermind behind the entire crime. However, Meeran has not been implicated as an accused in the case. The injured appears to have a motive to falsely implicate the accused. As for accused Nos. 1 to 4, they were implicated in connection with the construction of the septic tank. The implication of Accused Nos. 5 to 9 is based on the allegation that there was a temple dispute between the injured party and the accused. However, it is argued that they were falsely implicated as accused. The trial court, without considering these facts and circumstances, convicted the accused in a mechanical manner.

10. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents would submit that the injured is the Panchayat President of Thalaiyuthu Panchayat and belongs to the SC/ST community, while the other ward members belong to a different community. Therefore, they did not allow the injured to perform her duties as Panchayat President. It is further submitted that all the accused conspired together to do away with the life of the injured. On the date of occurrence, all the accused waylaid the injured and brutally attacked her with deadly weapons. Though she sustained grievous injuries, including the severing of her fingers and a fracture, she fortunately survived. She was unconscious, and at that juncture, a dying declaration was recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. IV, Tirunelveli. Since the injured was still alive, the statement cannot be treated as a dying declaration, and as such, the prosecution did not mark it. Moreover, she was unconscious at the time of giving her statement and, as such, was not in a fit state of mind to give correct statement. Additionally, the statement recorded in the Accident Register was taken from the brother of the injured, who was not an eyewitness to the incident. Therefore, it cannot be said that there were any contradictions or improvements in the version of occurrence. Subsequently, the statement of the injured was recorded and marked as Ex.P2. In her statement, she deposed before the Court as P.W.2, detailing specific overt acts against all the accused persons. Her testimony clearly corroborates with the injuries she sustained. All the accused brutally attacked her, resulting in the loss of several fingers, and she was in a critical condition. Fortunately, due to proper treatment, she survived. Further, an injured eyewitness is often considered the best witness, provided their testimony is cogent and trustworthy to convict the accused. It need not be corroborated by any other independent witness. The eyewitness categorically identified the accused and deposed about the specific overt act committed by each of the accused persons. Therefore, the trial court rightly convicted the accused, and there is no warrant for interference of this Court.

11. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.

12. The present case highlights the unfortunate state of affairs in our country, primarily for two reasons: firstly, because a woman was elected as the Village Panchayat President, and secondly, because the woman belongs to the SC Arunthathiyar community. This case serves as a clear example of the illegal actions committed by members of the other community against individuals from the SC Arunthathiyar community, who are part of a marginalized group. P.W.2 was elected as the Village Panchayat President for the term 2006-2011. During her tenure, the representatives of women requested the construction of public conveniences. Accordingly, P.W.2 submitted a request to the Union Block Development Officer, but the request was declined due to insufficient funds. The matter was then taken up with the District Collector, and ultimately, her request was rejected on the same grounds that the panchayat lacked the funds for the construction of public conveniences. P.W.2 approached a private cement company, which agreed to construct a public convenience for the general public. They decided to build it on a Government Poramboke land, where a toilet serving the Muslim community, a veterinary hospital, and a ration shop were already located nearby. However, when the construction work began, accused Nos. 1 and 4 arrived at the site and obstructed the construction process. On 13.02.2011, after the Block Development Officer had halted the construction of the public convenience, P.W.2, along with other community members, went to the office of the District Collector to submit a petition on grievance day. After submitting the petition, while P.W.2 was returning home in an auto with the help of the driver, P.W.2, the accused way-laid the auto, who were hiding in the library building with deadly weapons. The auto driver realized that the accused had waylaid the auto to assault him, so he stopped the auto and fled from the scene of occurrence. When P.W.2 attempted to exit the auto, the fifth accused verbally abused her with filthy language, including her caste name, and attacked her with a sickle. When P.W.2 tried to block the attack, she suffered an injury on her left shoulder, and her left index finger was completely severed. Subsequently, the sixth accused attacked her with an aruval, causing severe injury to her right ear lobe, including the complete severance of the pinna cartilage. The force of the attack caused her to fall, and the earring fell from her ear. The sixth accused then further attacked her on the neck, causing her to lose balance and fall down. Subsequently, the 8th and 9th accused lifted the saree and attacked her right knee, while another accused caught hold of her hair, cut it, and threw it on her face, causing her to fall. She was immediately taken to the hospital and admitted as an inpatient for two months due to multiple injuries on her neck, shoulder, and hands. Initially, she was admitted at the Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital, but due to inadequate medical facilities, she was later transferred to Rajiv Gandhi Hospital in Chennai and they refused to admit her as well and therefore, she was referred to Stanley Hospital, Chennai and she underwent several surgeries and treatment. The husband of the P.W.2 deposed as P.W.1. He deposed that all the accused came in an auto and attacked the injured with deadly weapons. It was marked as Ex.P1. The first ground raised by the accused challenging the conviction and sentence is that there was a delay in lodging the complaint, registering the FIR, and sending the same to the Court.

13. P.W.2 deposed that the occurrence took place at approximately 9:30 p.m. on 13.06.2011. The incident was reported to P.W.1, the husband of the injured, who was also informed that the injured had been taken to the hospital. Upon reaching the hospital, he found the injured person unconscious, and first aid was being administered. Upon enquiry, he found that the accused had assaulted her. After shifting the injured to the Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital and receiving the intimation, the respondent recorded the statement of P.W.1 at about 6:00 a.m. On 14.06.2011, at about 7:00 a.m., an FIR was registered in Cr.No.213 of 2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 324, 307 of the IPC, and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Harassment of Women Act. The complaint was marked as Ex.P1, and the FIR was marked as Ex.P15. It reached the Court at 3:00 p.m. on 14.06.2011, and therefore, there was no delay in lodging the complaint, registering the FIR, or sending the FIR to the Court.

14. In respect of motive, P.W.2 categorically deposed that she was holding the position of Panchayat President at Thalaiyuthu Panchayat. In an effort to construct a public convenience, she approached the concerned authorities. However, her request was denied due to a lack of funds, and as a result, a private company constructed a public toilet on the Government Poramboke land. This, however, was objected by members of the other community. Apart from that, there was a dispute related to the temple between the injured party and the accused. The injured woman, who belongs to the SC Arunthathiyar community, was carrying out public work independently. As a result, the accused, who belongs to a upper community, decided to do away with her life. Therefore, the prosecution has clearly established the motive against the accused.

15. The relevant portion of the evidence of P.W.2 is extracted hereunder:-

                  

                  

                  

16. Fortunately, due to proper treatment, P.W.2 survived. After the occurrence, her condition was immediately assessed, and a dying declaration was recorded. At that time, she was unconscious, and there was no evidence to determine whether she was fit to make a statement. She was unaware as to who took her to the hospital or what treatment she received. In fact, she was treated for over three months in various hospitals and underwent several surgeries. Since she survived, the dying declaration recorded by the judicial officer no longer holds its validity and need not be marked by the prosecution. Subsequently, her statement was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., on 27.09.2011, which was three months after the date of the occurrence, and it was marked as Ex.P2. Although P.W.2 was examined regarding the dying declaration and the contradictions between the dying declaration and the statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., she was unconscious at the time the dying declaration was recorded. If the dying declaration was to be deemed relevant, the defense should have marked it for comparison with the statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., but the defense failed to do so. Therefore, despite the contradictions pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants regarding the time, place, and specific overt acts of the accused, there are no circumstances that warrant disbelieving the evidence of the injured witness. Since the prosecution has clearly established the motive behind the occurrence, and the evidence of P.W.2 has inspired the confidence of the Court as cogent and trustworthy, there is nothing to discredit the injured eyewitness.

17. In fact, when the injured eye witness inspires the confidence of the Court, the prosecution need not to establish the motive. The injured eye witness has greater evidentiary value and unless there are any compelling reasons exist their statements are not be discarded lightly. Further, when the eye witness categorically deposed about the time and place of the occurrence, it cannot be doubted unless there are material contradictions. Therefore, the trial Court believed the evidence of the injured witness and convicted the accused. The injured eye witness evidence must be believed so that the real culprits shall not escape. Though other witnesses turned hostile, it would not affect the case of the prosecution since the injured eye witness is cogent and trustworthy. It is broad substratum of the prosecution version must be taken into consideration without considering the small contradictions and discrepancies. That apart, the occurrence took place on 13.06.2011, after a period of 11 years, the injured witness was examined on 19.09.2022. Therefore, the contradictions and discrepancies which normally creep due to loss of memory with passage of time should be discarded. Further, the injuries sustained by P.W.2 establishes her presence on the scene of occurrence and it cannot be rejected unless there was strong ground of such rejection. The testimony of an injured witness is of greater evidentiary value when the injuries are also corroborated by the doctor, who had treated the injured. The doctor who examined the injured recorded the Accident Register, which was marked as Ex.P16. The Accident Register revealed the following injuries:-

                   “1.15 x 2 cm bone deep laceration right tempro occipital region.

                   2. Loss of right ear lobe rip with throughout pinna cartilage

                   3. 20 x 3 cm bonde deep laceration on right side neck.

                   4. 3 x 05 cm x skin deep laceration on right side neck.

                   5. 3 x 2 cm bone deep laceration on right side

                   6. laceration on right fore arm and hand

                   (i) 3 x 2 cm bone deep

                   (ii) 6 x 3 cm bone deep

                   (iii) 4 x 3 cm bone deep

                   (iv) 4 x 3 cm

                   (v) 6 x 4 cm bone deep

                   7. V shaped laceration 6 x 3 cm x tender deep in left forearm.

                   8. 6 x 2 cm x bone deep laceration V shaped in the left forearm.

                   9. 6x 2 cm bone deep laceration in right arm.

                   10. 2 x 05 cm x Skin deep laceration in right thigh.

                   11. 5 x 3 cm x bone deep laceration in right knee.

                   12. 4 x 1 cm x bone deep laceration in right leg below knee.”

The doctor had deposed as P.W.16. The doctor opined that serial Nos.3,4,5,6,7 & 8 are grievous injuries and Serial Nos. 1,2,9,10,11, and 12 are simple injuries in nature.

18. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Khema @ Khem Chandra etc., vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2022 Live Law (SC) 689 in which, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that with regard to oral testimony, it can be classified as (I) wholly reliable (ii) wholly unreliable (iii) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. Since, P.W.2 had improved and exaggerated her testimony for impleading other accused persons, her testimony shall be wholly unreliable as stated supra.

19. On the ground of minor inconsistencies, the entire evidence of P.W.2 cannot be brushed aside. It is to be noted that whether there are any material improvements in her evidence. Her evidence therefore is required to be scrutinized with greater caution and circumspection. Though her dying declaration was recorded immediately after the occurrence, she was unconscious and there is no evidence to show that she was fit enough to make any statement. That apart, it was not marked before the trial Court and as such, the said contradictions or any discrepancies are not proved by the accused. Further, the presence of an injured eye witness at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted unless there are material contradictions in the deposition. Unless, it is otherwise established by the evidence, it must be believed that an injured witness would not allow the real culprits to escape. The evidence of injured witness cannot be doubted on account of some embellishment in natural conduct or minor contradictions. Even assuming that if there be any exaggeration or immaterial embellishments in the evidence of an injured witness, then such contradiction, exaggeration or embellishment should be discarded from the evidence of injured, but not the whole evidence. Therefore, the trial Court rightly discarded the alleged contradictions, exaggeration or embellishment and acquitted the accused Nos.2 and 3.

20. Further, all the accused, with an intention to do away with the life of the deceased, came with deadly weapons and assaulted her. P.W.2 categorically deposed about the specific overtact of the accused. Therefore, the prosecution categorically proved all the charges. Insofar as the nonrecovery of weapons used in the commission of crime from A5 and A8 is concerned, it is not a sine quo non to convict the accused, if there is a direct evidence in the form of eye witness even in the absence of recovery of weapon, the accused can be convicted. Mere, non-recovery of weapon is not a fatal to the case of the prosecution.

21. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that some of the accused names were added of the later point of time and the suppression of dying declaration by the prosecution proves that the accused have been falsely implicated. Further, they have been added as an accused due to the agitations initiated by the political leaders and the community leaders. During cross-examination of P.W.2, she categorically deposed that the real accused names were not impleaded by the police and they refused to add their names. Only after several protest, the respondent added the real accused, who were involved in the crime. Further, there are specific overtact as against the accused and the evidence of P.W.2 is cogent and clinching to convict each and every accused. In fact, the Inspector of Police and the Sub-Inspector of Police belong to the same community as the accused and as such, they refused to add their names as accused. Further, some of the accused persons were not implicated as accused and even then, it cannot be said that the investigation is a defective investigation. Though the investigation was done defectively, it would not amount for acquittal of the accused solely on that ground. It would be tantamount to placing trust in the hands of the investigating officer if the investigation is designed defectively, especially when ocular testimony is found to be credible and trustworthy, supported by cogent materials and the same is sufficient to convict the accused. Insofar as the dying declaration which was recorded from P.W. 2 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, is concerned, the learned Magistrate mentioned that P.W.2 was unable to answer and she was not in a position to give any statement at 2.45 a.m., on 14.06.2011. The learned Magistrate recorded the statement of P.W.2 at about 09.30 a.m. Therefore, P.W.2 was not in a position to explain the incident properly. That apart, the said dying declaration was not signed by P.W.2 and it was attested by her left toe impression. Therefore, this Court can visualise that at the time of recording the statement of P.W.2, she was in a unspeakable pathetic condition as she was assaulted on her neck and sustained extreme grievous injuries. After completion of her treatment, her statement was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., and the same was corroborated by her evidence. Thus, the prosecution proved the charges as against the accused and the trial Court rightly convicted them. Insofar as the conviction under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that it cannot be sustained on the ground that the provision envisages an increased punishment. He argued that, when the punishment under Section 307 of the IPC is life imprisonment, which is prohibited by law, the addition of the charge under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act would be redundant, as the punishment under Section 307 already covers the offence.

22. In the case on hand, charge under Section 307 of IPC is proved by the prosecution, which is an offence punishable for more than 10 years. All the accused had absolute knowledge that the injured belongs to SC Arunthathiyar community and that she was serving as a Panchayat President from the year 2006-2011. All the accused belongs to the same panchayat and only after knowing her identity, they intended to do away with her life and attacked her with deadly weapons. Further, they had attacked the injured only for the reason that she belongs to the member of SC Arunthathiyar community, which adds more culpability to the act of accused for committing the offence under the provision of SC/ST Act. Therefore, they are liable to be punished under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. Therefore, the trial Court rightly convicted the accused and sentenced them to maximum punishment of life sentence.

23. In view of the above, these criminal appeals are dismissed. The respondent police is directed to secure the accused, who are in bail and produce them before the trial Court for taking further steps.