S.Zahir Hussain v. State Rep By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 06.01.2022

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI Crl.O.P.No.24815 of 2021 S.Zahir Hussain

...Petitioner

Vs.

State Represented by

...Respondent

The Inspector of Police, Thousand Lights Police Station, Chennai.

(Crime No.382 of 2021) Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest pending investigation in crime No.382 of 2021, on the file of the respondent Police.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Doraisamy for M/s.L.Srileka For Respondent : Mr.N.S.Suganthan, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervenor : Mr.N.Ramesh

ORDER

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Section 294(b), 332, 353 and 506(ii) of IPC in Cr.No.382 of 2021 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that that the defacto complainant who is working as Constable/Sepoy at Chennai Zonal Office, Directorate of Enforcement, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Government of India and when he was on duty on 03.12.2021 one person named Shri Ibrahim, claiming as an Advocate Clerk belong to the Office of one Advocate S.Zakir Hussain came to our Office on the pretext of submitting some documents on behalf of his client. When asked, he was not able to name any of the Officer to whom he wants to meet. Since his behavior appeared to be suspicious, the defacto complainant requested to produce his identity card which he failed to produce instead he claimed that the he is Staff of the said

Advocate and he will not respond to the level of Constable, the defacto complainant asked to hand over his mobile phone etc., if he wants to go inside and that too after proper identification, due to which, the the said person started arguing, shouting, causing annoyance and abusing him with vulgar words and others, thereby, disturbing the peaceful functioning of the Government Office and the petitioner viz., S.Zahir Hussain herein also threatened him with dire consequences Hence, the complaint.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not committed any such offence as alleged by the prosecution and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, the learned counsel prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Counsel for the Intervenor submits that the petitioner along with other accused disturbing the peaceful functioning of the Government Office and prevented the constable to do his official duty. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl side) on instructions submits that A1 involved in this case was arrested and enlarged on bail Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the submissions made by both counsel, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days after lifting of lockdown or the commencement of the Court's normal functioning whichever is earlier, before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate No.XXII, Egmore, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.

(d)the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

(e)on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/ Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions has been imposed and the petitioner 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]; and; (f)if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229-A IPC.

-sd/- 06/01/2022 This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned TRUE COPY Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104.

TO 1 THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, NO.XXII, EGMORE, CHENNAI.

2 THE CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, EGMORE, CHENNAI. [FOR INFORMATION] 3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THOUSAND LIGHTS POLICE STATION, CHENNAI.

CC to M/S.L.SRILEKA Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.24815/2021 Date :06/01/2022 TA-20/01/2022