G.Rajaraman v. State Represented By The

Crl.O.P.No.22738 of 2023 C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.

The petitioner herein seeks anticipatory bail in Crime No.145 of 2022 registered by the respondent Police for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 452, 294(b), 323, 307, 347, 201 r/w 149 IPC.

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner put up an argument that the petitioner had been granted bail earlier but unfortunately was not able to execute sureties. The order of anticipatory bail lapsed by itself. Now the respondents have also filed a final report showing the petitioner as absconding accused since the petitioner had not been granted bail after arrest or anticipatory bail while apprehending arrest.

3.It is also stated by the learned Public Prosecutor, Puducherry, that an application has also been filed under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. for further investigation. Rule 24 of the Criminal Rules of Practice put in effect by the Madras High Court which exercises jurisdiction over all the Sessions Court in the State of Tamil Nadu and in the Union Territory of Puducherry provides that when an accused had not obtained bail or anticipatory bail prior to issuance of summons from the concerned jurisdictional Court, then the petitioner can 1/3

produce sureties to the satisfaction of the said Court and also execute bond for appearance.

4.This Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. But, however, the provisions of law as stated is pointed out.

sli 30.11.2023 2/3

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.

sli Crl.O.P.No.22738 of 2023 30.11.2023 3/3