BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the First day of March Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice C.T.SELVAM CRL OP(MD) No.2664 of 2011 SHANMUGANATHAN ... PETITIONER/SOLE ACCUSED Vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE B2 BAZAR POLICE STATION, RAMNAD, CRIME NO.98/2011 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. A.V.ARUN Advocate For Respondent : MR.P.RAJENDRAN, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Section 384 of IPC, in Crime No.98 of 2011, seeking anticipatory bail under section 438 Cr.P.C. 2. Heard Mr.A.V.Arun, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.P.Rajendran, learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondent State. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner informs that the petitioner is said to have waylaid an auto-driver and sought to extract money from him and finding that such auto-driver did not hold any money, he let him go. The occurrence is alleged to have been taken place at 23.15 hours on 24.02.2011. Learned counsel produces an affidavit of the de-facto complainant which informs of his having been accused of drunken driving without holding a license and of his having been taken away to the police station in respect of such offence at about 20.30 hours on 24.02.2011. The affidavit also informs of the respondent police having obtained signature of the de-facto complainant on blank papers. A copy of the police notice No.5337438 is produced in support of such submission. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner was arrayed as accused for various offences in as many as 15 cases and that he stands acquitted in some cases while some cases have been closed as mistakes of fact. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is only one case for offence under Section 506(ii) pending on the file of the Kenikarai Police Station. Such case has not been closed owing to the animosity of one Kandhasamy and one Subash, persons attached to the office of the Superintendent of Police. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the said Kandhasamy and this petitioner hold adjacent lands and have disputes in respect thereof. The petitioner has moved this Court in W.P.(MD) No.14695 of 2010 against history sheet being maintained against him. On the same being allowed, the earlier history sheet maintained against the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner was closed. Pursuant to the registration of the present case a fresh history sheet stands opened against this petitioner. 5. Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would state that the petitioner had several cases against him and some of them are still pending trial. He would also oppose grant of bail to the petitioner. 6. Though this Court normally would go slow in taking into consideration an affidavit filed by the de-facto complainant, this Court is of the view that in circumstance where the de-facto complainant stands charged of an offence of drunken driving without holding a driving license, very close to the alleged occurrence in the instance case, warrants proper action at the appropriate level towards avoiding police misconduct and consequences thereof and towards taking appropriate action against erring police personnel. In these circumstances, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail in the event of his arrest or on his appearance before the learned Magistrate concerned, on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Ramnad, and on further condition that the petitioner shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. for a period of two weeks. 7. Given the circumstances, this Court directs that the investigation in the case to be conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ramnad under the direct supervision of the Superintendent of Police of the District. In the event of finding any wrong doing, on the part of the police personnel, the Superintendent of Police shall appropriate disciplinary action. In any event, the Superintendent of Police shall cause file a report of his finding and the action recommended if any, to this Court. A copy of this order shall be placed before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Bench for appropriate follow up. sd/- 01/03/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I, RAMNAD. 2. THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, RAMNAD. 3. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE B2 BAZAR POLICE STATION, RAMNAD, 4. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. 5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, RAMNAD. 6. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, RAMNAD. COPY TO THE REGISTRAR JUDICIAL, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1. CC to M/S. A.V.ARUN Advocate SR.No.10529 SR : 04.03.2011 : 2p/9c ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.2664 of 2011 Date :01/03/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/