Rajamani v. The Deputy Superintendent Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 27/01/2020 PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice G.R.SWAMINATHAN

1. Rajamani,

2. R.Ajithkumar, ... Petitioners/Accused No.1 & 2 Vs

1. The Deputy Superintendent Of Police, Karur.

2. The State Rep by.

The Inspector of Police, Thennilai Police Station, Karur, Cr.No.4 of 2020.

... Respondents/Complainants

3. Harishprasath, ... Defacto Complainant For Petitioners : M/s.Vinod Sathya Lazar, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr.A.Robinson, Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side) for R1 & R2 Mr.R.Alagumani for R3 PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.4 of 2020 on the file of the 2nd Respondent Police ORDER : The Court made the following order :- Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned Government Advocate(Crl. Side) appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent.

2. The petitioners apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences under sections 294(b) and 323 of I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, in Crime No.4 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

3. I have held vide order dated 26.11.2019, in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.17224 of 2019 that a petition for anticipatory bail even in a 1/3

case arising under SC/ST Act is maintainable under certain circumstances. But then, I have also held that the petition for anticipatory bail will have to be drafted in a particular manner. Paragraph 16 of the said order reads as follows:- "16.It is necessary to make a mention at this juncture about the manner in which a petition for anticipatory bail has to be drafted. In a leading case in Bharat Singh and Ors. vs. State of Haryana and Ors (1988) 4SCC 534, the Hon'ble Supreme Court drew a distinction between a pleading under the CPC and a writ petition or a counter-affidavit. While in a pleading, that is, a plaint or a written statement, the facts and not evidence are required to be pleaded, in a writ petition or in the counter-affidavit not only the facts but also the evidence in proof of such facts have to be pleaded and annexed to it.

If an accused is to be granted anticipatory bail in a case arising under the Atrocities Act, he has to fulfil the test laid down in Dr.Subhash Kashinath Mahajan case. It is true that there are no strict rules of pleading in Criminal Procedure Code as those in the Civil Procedure Code. Nevertheless, the principles of natural justice require that the victim is not taken by surprise. Hence, the petition to be filed by the accused along with the anexures should contain all the necessary and relevant materials. Only after a judicial scrutiny of those materials and particulars, the court can come to a decision as to whether the accused is entitled to anticipatory bail.

Of course, the finding given by the court is only based on a prima facie view for the purpose of granting anticipatory bail and it will not have any bearing on the investigation as such."

4. In this case, the petitioner has filed a bald petition. It does not meet the standards set out in paragraph 16 of the said order. Hence, I am not in a position to adjudicate the contentions of the petitioner on merits. Hence, the criminal original petition stands dismissed. The petitioners are given liberty to file a fresh petition for anticipatory bail.

sd/- 27/01/2020 / TRUE COPY / / /2020 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

2/3

TO

1. The Deputy Superintendent Of Police, Karur.

2. The Inspector of Police, Thennilai Police Station, Karur.

3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

+1 CC to M/s.R.ALAGUMANI, Advocate ( SR-1546[I] dated 27/01/2020 ) ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.909 of 2020 Date : 27/01/2020 TR/SKN/S-II(31.01.2020)3P 5C 3/3