S.Harikrishnan v. State By

Crl.O.P.No. 5 4 8 4 of 2 0 1 6 R.MALA, J.

The petitioners apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 420 and 406 of I.P.C., in Crime No. Not known of 2016 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have been falsely implicated in this case and hence, he prays for enlargement on anticipatory bail.

3. The learned Government Advocate (Crl Side) would submit that on the basis of the complaint given by one Kalaiselvan, only petition enquiry is pending in C.S.R.No.274 of 2014.

R.MALA, J.

rrg

4. Considering the submission of the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. However, I am inclined to give a direction to the respondent not to harass the petitioners under the guise of petition enquiry. The respondent is directed to follow the dictum laid down in D.K.Basu Vs. State of West Bengal reported in AIR (1997) SC 610.

5. With the above direction, this Criminal Original petition is disposed of.

1 1. 0 3. 2 0 1 6 rrg Crl.O.P.No. 5 4 8 4 of 2 0 1 6