1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Twelfth day of January Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr. Justice C.T.SELVAM CRL OP(MD) No.406 of 2011 1 LAKSHMANAN 2 MUNIAPPAN 3 SHANKAR 4 AHARAMUTHU 5 CHINNATHAMBI ... PETITIONERS / ACCUSED NO.1 TO 5 Vs STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE TALUK POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL DISTRICT, CR.NO.946 OF 2003. ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. V.KARUNA 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 petitioners apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence under Sections 147, 148, 452, 324, 326, 307, 506(ii) and r/w 34 of IPC in S.C No.65 of 2010 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Dindigul. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners apprehend arrest on the ground of issuance of Non-Bailable Warrant. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the first petitioner attended pooja before going to Sabarimala Temple. The other petitioners also took part and, they were not able to appear before the Trial Court on the date of hearing and as such, Non-Bailable Warrant was issued against the petitioners herein. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. 3. Heard the learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is submitted by the learned Government Advocate that the Non-Bailable Warrant is pending against the petitioners as the petitioners were not appeared before the Trial Court on the date of hearing. 4. I have carefully considered the rival contentions put forward by either side and also perused the materials available on record. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that the petitioners were not appeared before the Trial Court on the date of hearing and as such, Non-Bailable Warrant was issued against the petitioners herein, this Court directs the petitioners to file a petition under Section 70(2) of Cr.P.C., for recalling the Non- Bailable Warrant before the Principal Subordinate Court, Dindigul, and in the event of filing such an application for recalling the warrant, the Principal Subordinate Court, Dindigul, is directed to consider the same and pass orders on merits on the same day and in accordance with law. It is also made clear that the petitioners need not appear in person for filing a petition under Section 70(2) of CrlP.C., as the Section itself does not contemplate the surrender of a person for recalling the Non- Bailable Warrant. With the above direction, the petition is disposed of. sd/- 12/01/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1. THE PRINCIPAL SUBORDINATE JUDGE, DINDIGUL. 2. THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. 3. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE TALUK POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL DISTRICT. +1. CC to M/S. V.KARUNA Advocate SR.No.1477 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.406 of 2011 Date :12/01/2011 RJ/19.1.11 2p/5c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/