Madras High Court
Thiyagu @ Thiyagarajan vs The Assistant Commissioner Of Police on 12 November, 2024
Crl.A.No.1303 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 12.11.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
Crl.A.No.1303 of 2024
Thiyagu @ Thiyagarajan, ... Appellant/Accused - A17
Vs.
1.The Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Redhills Range,
Redhills, Chennai.
2. The State Rep. by:-
The Inspector of Police,
E-4, Kattur Police Station,
Chennai.
(Crime No.125/2022) ...Respondents/Complainant
3.Manikandan ... Respondent/Defacto Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes Amendment Act, to set aside the dismissal order of
Anticipatory Bail passed in Unnumbered Crl.M.P.filing No.
ATN20230000924C20400025 dated 12.09.2024 by the learned Principal
Page No.1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.1303 of 2024
District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur and consequently direct the learned
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur to take the Anticipatory
Bail petition in S.C.No.128/2024 filed by the appellant on the file and
dispose the same on merits.
For Appellant : Mr.K.Madhan
For R1 and R2 :Mr.Dr.C.E.Pratap
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
For R3 : Mr.Jayashree Dharbar
Legal Aid Counsel
JUDGMENT
The appeal has been filed, aggrieved by the dismissal of the petition
filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C., seeking anticipatory bail.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner/A17 would submit
that the appellant was not aware of the case pending against him; that the
respondent police never sought for arrest of the appellant; that the appellant
has been falsely implicated for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 302,
120B, 149, 341 and 450 of the IPC under Section 3 (2)(v) of the SC/ST
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and that the respondents have now
filed the final report before the Special Court, which is pending trial in
S.C.No.128 of 2024; and that since the petitioner was not apprehended
during investigation and the co-accused have all been arrested and released
on bail, the detention of the appellant is not necessary for the purpose of the
prosecution and the appellant/A17 would comply with any stringent
conditions to ensure his presence in the trial and hence, prayed for grant of
anticipatory bail.
3. The learned counsel for the third respondent/de-facto complainant
would submit that the order impugned is in accordance with law; that the
appellant has not made out any extraordinary circumstances for the grant of
anticipatory bail, and therefore, the appellant is not entitled to anticipatory
bail as prayed for.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), for the first and
second respondents, would submit that the petitioner was shown as
absconding in the final report; and that the petition for anticipatory bail is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
not maintainable, and therefore, there is no reason to interfere in the
impugned order.
5. Admittedly, all the accused except the appellant/A17 were arrested
during the investigation and all the accused, except A7, were released on bail
during the investigation. It is also admitted that the appellant/A17 is a
practising lawyer in the very same court and therefore, there is no reason for
him to abscond and the final report filed by the second respondent showing
him as an absconding accused may not be correct. The order rejecting the
petition for anticipatory bail cannot be faulted. However, the fact is that the
appellant was not arrested during the investigation. The arrest and detention
during investigation and trial is not required in all cases. This Court is of the
view that if the appellant is directed to execute a bond with sureties in terms
of Rule 24 of the Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019 to ensure his presence
before the trial Court, it would subserve the interest of justice.
6. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances, this Court is
inclined to direct the appellant to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/-
(Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
satisfaction of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur
District and on further conditions that:
(i) the appellant/accused shall appear before the
concerned Trial Court on all hearing dates without fail.
(ii) the appellant/accused shall not commit any offences
of similar nature;
(iiii)the appellant/accused shall not abscond either during
investigation or trial;
(iv)the appellant/accused shall not tamper with evidence
or witness either during investigation or trial;
(v) on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the
learned Judicial Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take
appropriate action against the appellant in accordance with law
as if the conditions have been imposed and the appellant
released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State
of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560];
(vi)if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be
registered under Section 229A IPC.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7.In view of the above, this Criminal Appeal is ordered accordingly.
12.11.2024
Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
dk
Copy to:
1.The Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Thiruvallur.
2.The Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Redhills Range,
Redhills, Chennai.
3.The Inspector of Police,
E-4, Kattur Police Station,
Chennai.
4.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
dk
12.11.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
