ARASU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under S. 438, Cr. P. C. In that, the petition itself is signed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, wherein the grounds for releasing the petitioner on anticipatory bail are incorporated. It is admitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Santhanam, that there is no provision in the procedural law of the land namely the Criminal P. C. for an, affidavit being obtained from the person who is actually aggrieved and who wants the discretionary power vested with the Court under S. 438, Cr. P. C. , to be exercised to swear an affidavit which will contain a firsthand knowledge in the language in which he is acquainted or in his own mother-tongue so that the Court may be having the first-hand information as to the circumstances under which he has been placed so as to come and have the remedy available for him under the provisions of S. 438, Cr. P. C. , and as such this is of is course a matter, which is casually made not with a purpose to be observed nor it can impose any rule by way of an observation by this Court. But it feels that it would have been better from the very horse's mouth the facts are emanated in the very mother-tongue and who wants to have his grievance clinched by virtue of an order made by this Court, taking advantage of the fact that the amended procedural Code as introduced in S. 438, Cr. P. C. Now this is so far about the feeling that the Court entertained its mind while disposing of this petition and this has nothing to do with the merits of the case.

(2.) NOW let me discuss the merits of the case that is' put forward in this petition. Mr. Santhanam, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits inter alia that unnecessarily the petitioner herein is dragged to Court in that he is being fisted with by the Police officers concerned, taken to the Police Station concerned and was questioned as to whether he is involved in case of theft whereas he is innocent.

(3.) IT is relevant in this connection to note that in para 2 the petitioner has stated that the respondent in this petition viz. , the Sub-Inspector of Police, Arumbakkam Police Station, Ponneri : Circle, Chingleput District has been making efforts to apprehend him in respect of some non-bailable offence, which he has not committed.