Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/2284/2020disposed of

Ranjith v. The Deputy Superintendent Of Police

2020-02-10Honourable Mr Justice G.R.Swaminathan2 pages

CRL OP(MD). No.2284 of 2020 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 10/02/2020 PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice G.R.SWAMINATHAN CRL OP(MD). No.2284 of 2020 Ranjith ... Petitioner/Accused No.4 Vs 1.The Deputy Superintendent Of Police, Aranthangi, Pudukkottai District.

2.The Sub Inspector of Police, Aranthangi Police Station, Aranthangi, Pudukkottai District.

Crime No.388 of 2013

...Respondents 1,2/Complainant

3.M.Sivarajapandian ... 3rd Respondent/Defacot Complainant For Petitioner : M/s.K.Gokul, Advocate.

For R1 & R2 : Mr.A.Robinson, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C PRAYER :- for Anticipatory Bail in Spl.S.C.No.161 of 2019 on the file of Sessions Judge (PCR Court), Pudukkottai.

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate(Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent. 2.The petitioner is facing trial in Special S.C.No.161 of 2019 on the file of the Sessions Judge (PCR Court), Pudukkottai, for the offences under Section 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 506(ii) of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015.

3.Non bailable warrant is pending against the petitioner for the last several years. It is seen that there is some few confusion https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1/2

CRL OP(MD). No.2284 of 2020 in this case. It is for the Court below to resolve the same. I am not issuing any specific direction. If the petitioner is an absconding accused, definitely the case should have been split up as far as he is concerned. It appears that the case was not split up. Behind his back, the witnesses could not have been examined also. Be that as it may, it is open to the Court below to evolve an appropriate course of action for resolving the issue.

4. The petitioner through his counsel gives an undertaking that he will appear in all the future hearings without any default. If he is unable to appear, his counsel will represent him and file an application under Section 317 of Cr.P.C. On account of the petitioner's absence, trial will not be stalled. If this undertaking is breached, the order now passed will stand vacated automatically and the petitioner will be remanded to custody. 5.Recording the said undertaking given by the petitioner through his counsel, the petitioner is directed to appear before the Court below on 28.02.2020 and apply for recall of warrant. Till date, sureties have not been furnished. Therefore, the warrant issued against the petitioner shall be recalled by the Court below on his furnishing sureties and on putting him on appropriate terms. Non Bailable Warrant shall be kept in abeyance till then.

6. The Criminal Original petition stands disposed of, on these terms.

sd/- 10/02/2020 / TRUE COPY / / /2020 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1.THE SESSSIONS JUDGE,(PCR COURT), PUDUKKOTTAI. 2.THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ARANTHANGI, PUDUKKOTTAI DISTRICT.

3.THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ARANTHANGI POLICE STATION, ARANTHANGI, PUDUKKOTTAI DISTRICT. 4.THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

+1. CC to M/S.K.GOKUL Advocate SR.No.2879

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.2284 of 2020 Date :10/02/2020 TK/PN/SAR.2/14.02.2020/2P/6C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2/2