LAWS(MAD)-1981-9-34

THANGAPANDI NADAR Vs. STATE

Decided On September 22, 1981
THANGAPANDI NADAR Appellant
V/S
STATE, REPRESENTED BY SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KULASEKARAPATTINAM POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT IN CRIME NO. 288 OF 1981 Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, exhibits as the matters imbedded into, that the petitioner herein calling himself as a respectable man, requires that by an order of this Court he should not be touched by the large pole of the extended arm of the Police, which arm has to be of course extended and made use of as per the provisions of the procedural law of the land in consonance with the principle of the criminal law of the land exhibited by the principles imbedded in the provisions of the Indian Penal Code or any of the provisions of the enactments which contained the penal provisions or quasi-penal provisions.

(2.) IT is relevant to note that in the affidavit that has been sworn by the petitioner himself in this petition disclosed that in the event of arrest by the Kulasekarapattinam Police Station, Tirunelveli District in Crime No. 288 of 1981, he should be enlarged on bail and as such, an order contemplated in dealing about the anticipatory bail in the amended procedural Code regarding the Criminal Procedure applicable to the Courts of this country is actually prayed for in the application. It is submitted by the petitioner herein inter alia that the prosecution is that on 19th August, 1981 at about 4-30 a.m. Pattu and one identified person came and attacked the Kulasekarapattinam Police Station and Duty Police men then forcibly taken out one prisoner named Rajmohan from the lock-up room and that inasmuch as he is aged 65 years, he should be granted anticipatory bail. It is further submitted in paragraph 4 of the affidavit sworn to by him that he is an agriculturist and that he came from a decent and very respectable family and had no bad antecedent.

(3.) BEARING in mind the principles laid down in the decisions extracted below by the Supreme Court together with the decision reported in G. Narasimhalu v. Public Prosecutor1, this Court thinks that this is not a stage at which an order favourable to the petitioner herein can be pronounced in this petition.