BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Twenty Second day of December Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr. Justice V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH CRL OP(MD) No.16917 of 2011 KALIDASS ... PETITIONER Vs STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE SOUTH GATE POLICE STATION, MADURAI CR.NO. 1142 OF 2011 ... RESPONDENT For Petitioner : M/S. T.RAMESH Advocate For Respondent : MR.K.S.DURAIPANDIAN, Addl. Public Prosecutor (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 in Cr. No.1142 of 2011 on the file of the learned respondent Police and hence, seeks anticipatory bail. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.K.S.Duraipandian, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit in his argument that the petitioner is the son of the deceased persons in the case and the respondent Police had interrogated the petitioner and had compelled the petitioner to admit the offence. He would further submit that the brother and others were also compelled to do so. Therefore, he has submitted a petition before the District Collector for relieving the petitioner from such harassment. He would further submit that his mother namely, Pandiyammal has filed a petition in Crl.O.P.No.11908 of 2011 praying this Court to direct the respondent not to harass her and that petition was ordered. He would further submit that in his argument that instead of identifying the correct accused, the petitioner was compelled by the respondent Police and therefore, there is an apprehension that the petitioner may be arrested for the alleged crime and therefore, he may also be considered for anticipatory bail. 4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit in his argument that FIR has been registered in Cr.No.1142 of 2011 on 5.8.2011 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C., and the petitioner is not an accused in this case and the investigation is still pending. However, if any clue has been got, the respondent will proceed with the clue and at present, there is no clue obtained. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5. He would further submit in his argument that for the present the petitioner is not an accused in this case and the respondent police are not harassing the petitioner or his brother and if for any reason the petitioner has to be examined, the dictum laid down in D.K.Basu Vs. State of West Bengal reported in AIR (1997) SC 610 would be followed. 6. Considering the submissions made by both sides, this Court is inclined to record the submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl. Side), and since the petitioner is not an accused in this case there is no necessity of granting anticipatory bail. However, the respondent police is directed to follow the principles laid down in D.K.Basu Vs. State of West Bengal reported in AIR (1997) SC 610 in conducting enquiry with the petitioner and his family members including his brothers. With the aforesaid direction, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. sd/- 22/12/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE SOUTH GATE POLICE STATION, MADURAI. 2. THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1. CC to M/S. T.RAMESH Advocate SR.No.45246 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.16917 of 2011 Date :22/12/2011 RJ/23.12.11 2p/4c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/