1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Tenth day of August Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice R.MALA CRL OP(MD) Nos.9614 & 9618 of 2011 MUTHUKRISHNAN ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED IN BOTH THE PETITIONS Vs STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE CITY CRIME BRANCH POLICE STATION, TRICHY DISTRICT, CRIME NO. NOT KNOWN ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT IN CRL.OP(MD)NO.9614 of 2011 STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, K.K.NAGAR POLICE STATION, TRICHY DISTRICT CR.NO.NOT KNOWN ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT IN CRL.OP(MD)NO.9618 of 2011 For Petitioner : M/S. T.A.OMPRAKASH Advocate in both the petitions For Respondent : MR.A.RAMAR, Additional Public Prosecutor in both the petitions PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner/Accused apprehends arrest at the hands of the respective respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 467, 468, 420 and 506(i) I.P.C., in Crime No.not known on the file of the respective respondent police and hence, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner apprehended for arrest on the basis of the complaint given by one Palanichamy for the alleged offences under Sections 467, 468, 420 and 506(i) I.P.C. He would further submit that the defacto complainant has totally suppressed the real fact of civil case in O.S.No.167 of 2010 pending between the defacto complainant and the petitioner. He would further submit that already, a case has been registered against the defacto https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 complainant in crime No.124 of 2010 by the K.K.Nagar Police Station, Trichy, for the alleged offences under Sections 427, 447, 294(b) and 506(i) I.P.C. and hence, he come forward with these applications for the enlargement of anticipatory bail. 3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that no case is pending before the respondent against the petitioner. 4.At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that even though, case has not been registered against the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled for anticipatory bail and to substantiate his claim, he relied upon the decisions of the Apex Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia V. State of Punjab reported in 1980 Supreme Court Cases (Crl.) 465 and Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre V. State of Maharastra reported in (2011) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 514 and prayed for the enlargement of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 5.Considering the argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the decisions relied upon by him, the petitioner has fairly conceded that no case has been registered against the petitioner. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has also stated that no case has been registered against the petitioner. In such circumstances, it is appropriate to consider the decision of the Apex Court relied upon by the petitioner in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia V. State of Punjab reported in 1980 Supreme Court Cases (Crl.) 465, wherein, the Apex Court has held as follows: “The filing of a first information report is not a condition precedent to the exercise of power under Section 438 and the imminence of a likely arrest founded on a reasonable belief can be shown to exist even if an FIR is not yet filed. Anticipatory bail can be granted even after an F.I.R. is filed, so long as the applicant has not been arrested.” Considering the above said decision, it has been stated that anticipatory bail can be granted even after an FIR is filed, so long as the applicant has not been arrested. But, in the said decision, it has also been stated that the imminence of a likely arrest founded on a reasonable belief can be shown to exist even if an FIR is not yet filed for the entitlement of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 6.He also relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre V. State of Maharastra reported in (2011) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 514, wherein, the Apex Court has held that the arrest should be the last option and if should be restricted to those exceptional cases where arresting the accused is imperative in the facts and circumstances of that case and the Court must carefully examine the entire available record and particularly the allegations which have been directly attributed to the accused and these allegations are corroborated by other material and circumstances on record. 7.I have considered the decision of the Apex Court in Gobarbhai Naranbhai Singala V. State of Gujarat and others reported in 2008(1) Crimes 274 (SC), wherein, the Apex Court has held that while considering the application for bail, what is required to be looked is, (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the charge; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of section; (iv) danger of accused absconding or fleeing if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail. 8.Considering the both decisions of the Apex Court, even though the petitioner apprehended for the arrest on the basis of the complaints given by Palanichamy, admittedly, no case has been registered against the petitioner. Further, no complaint has been produced before this Court as alleged by the petitioner. Since, this Court is not having any material to show as to whether he has taken active part in the commission of offence and as to whether, he is needed for interrogation before arrest and the same to be decided only on the basis of the registration of F.I.R. 9.Considering the decision of the Apex Court in Gobarbhai Naranbhai Singala V. State of Gujarat and others reported in 2008(1) Crimes 274 (SC) also, the petitioner herein has filed three applications for the enlargement of anticipatory bail. Hence, without perusal of the F.I.R. or complaint and any material, this Court cannot decide the matter as to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 whether there is any prima facie case is made out and whether the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary. 10.In such circumstances, I am of the view that this is a case of purely civil in nature and civil suits are pending against the alleged defacto complainant and the petitioner herein, this is not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail and the same deserved to be dismissed. 11.Accordingly, these criminal original petitions are dismissed. However, the respondents are directed not to harass the petitioner under the guise of enquiry and they are directed to follow the dictum laid down in D.K.Basu Vs. State of West Bengal reported in AIR (1997) SC 610. sd/- 10/08/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CITY CRIME BRANCH POLICE STATION TRICHY DISTRICT, 2.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE K.K.NAGAR POLICE STATION, TRICHY DISTRICT 3.THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1. CC to M/S. T.A.OMPRAKASH Advocate SR.No.26931 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) Nos.9614 & 9618 of 2011 Date :10/08/2011 TR : 10.08.2011: 4p/5c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/