Surya v. State Rep. By,

P. DHANABAL.J., The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offences under Sections 318(2), 336(3) BNS Act in Crime No.814 of 2024, on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is working as Office Assistant in Judicial Magistrate-I, Tindivanam. The petitioner had approached the Defacto-complainant for medical certificate and Fitness certificate and he also issued the same. The petitioner made over writing in the Medical Certificate and produced the same before his office. Hence the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that this petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. This petitioner is an innocent person and he had not indulged in any illegal activities as alleged by the prosecution and he has been falsely implicated in this case by the respondent police. Hence, he seeks anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that the petitioner is working as Office Assistant in Judicial Magistrate-I, Tindivanam. The petitioner had approached the Defacto-complainant for medical certificate and Fitness certificate and he also issued the same. The petitioner made over writing in the Medical Certificate and produced the same before his office. In this case, investigation is at initial stage. Hence, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Heard both side and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the representations made on both sides and considering that the investigation is at initial stage and the offences are grave in nature, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, at this stage.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 26.09.2024

gvn P.DHANABAL,J gvn Crl.O.P.No.23671 of 2024 26.09.2024