1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Eighteenth day of October Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice S.NAGAMUTHU CRL OP(MD) No.13675 of 2011 1.K. MOOSAL KALIN 2.M. MUSTHABHA JABAR ALI 3.BISHMI KAJA 4.K.S. SHAGUL HAMEED 5.HYDER ALI 6.P.M.K. BASHEER MOHAMED LEPPAI ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 to 5 Vs STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE MELAPALAYAM POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT, CR NO. 681/2011 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. S.M.A.JINNAH Advocate For Respondent : MR. K.S. DURAI PANDIAN, Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- Apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for offences under Sections 147, 323, 342, 363, 387 and 506(i) IPC in Crime No.671 of 2011, the petitioners have come up with this petition seeking anticipatory bail. 2.According to the case of prosecution, due to previous motive, the de- facto complainant was abducted by these accused and he was forced to execute a promissory note amounting to an offence of extortion and he was also attacked resulting in simple injuries. 3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the promissory not alleged to have been obtained by force has not been returned so far. He would submit that if the petitioners are granted anticipatory bail, it would not be possible for the police to recover the promissory note. 4.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that in the first information report, no time and place have been mentioned and that due to some political motive, this case has been falsely foisted. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 5.I have considered the above submissions. 6.As of now, according to the first information report, there are strong grounds making out a prima facie case against these petitioners. Though, it is stated that the date and tie of the occurrence has not been mentioned in the first information report, it is needless to point out that the first information report is not an encyclopaedia to contain all the particulars and non mentioning of certain particulars may not be relevant at this stage, while considering the petition for anticipatory bail. As pointed out by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, if anticipatory bail is granted to these petitioners, it may not be possible for the police to have custodial interrogation of these petitioners so as to recover the promissory note said to have been extorted by the petitioners. 7.The learned counsel for the petitioners would however submit that custodial interrogation is not required in this case, because even according to the case of the prosecution, the de-facto complainant had borrowed money from the accused. In my considered opinion, the said admission in the first information report in respect of earlier transaction shall not in any manner mitigate the grave allegation against the petitioners. The learned counsel would further submit that the de-facto complainant has not sustained any injury at the hands of these petitioners. IN my considered opinion, it is not necessary that in all cases of attack, there has to be injury resulted in. From the foregoing discussions, I find that the allegations making out a strong case against the petitioners and therefore, ti is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. sd/- 18/10/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MELAPALAYAM POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT 2.THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1. CC to M/S. S.M.A.JINNAH Advocate SR.No.35895 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.13675 of 2011 Date :18/10/2011 TR :20.10.2011: 2p/4c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/