S SARAVANAN ALIAS SARAVANAPERUMAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In Crime No. 546/94 of Tutirocin Central Police Station one Muruganantham is stated to have been attacked and murdered by A. 2 to A 5 at 10.15 a.m. on 19-7-1994 at the instigation of petitioner Saravanan alias Saravanaperumal. Peti tioner seeks anticipatory bail in the event of arrest for the alleged offences under Sections 147, 148, 341 and 302 I.P.C. Learned counsel for the peti tioner submitted that recently the petitioner was nominated as the State Deputy Leader of the Youth Wing of a political party. Aggrieved over this, the District Secretary of the rival party has instigated the complainant respondent police to add the name of the petitioner in the complaint. According to learned counsel, though the occurrence is stated to have taken place at 10.15 a.m. F.I.R. has reached the Police station which is 2 K.M. away from the scene of crime only at 4.30 p.m. In fact, an earlier F.I.R. prepared at 11.00 a.m. was suppressed and in the second F.I.R. the name of the petitioner was added.

(2.) Learned Additional Public Prosecutor stoutly opposed the application pleading that the petitioner was present on the scene of crime and only on his instigation deceased was done to death. Besides, he was involved in Crime No. 77 of 1990 which related to an offence under Explosive Substances Act. His tory Sheet Suspect was opened against the petitioner on 19-2-1994 on the order of Inspector General and Intelligence and so he does not deserve an order granting anticipatory bail. However, learned Addi tional Public Prosecutor is unable to explain what is meant by History Sheet Suspect and what are the Departmental Rules relating to the opening of such sheet. While so, I do not think that aspect can stand in the way of the petitioner seeking his remedy. And it is not the case of the Additional Public Prosecutor that the antecedents of the petitioner are such that he will not be available for interrogation in case he is released on bail after arrest. Nor it is his contention that there is any likelihood of the petitioner fleeing from justice.

(3.) Learned Additional Public Prosecutor mainly resisted the application on the ground that in a grave crime like murder, the provisions of Section 438 Cr. P.C. could not be invoked to grant anticipatory bail. He placed reliance on Kiran Devi v. State of Rajasthan, 1988 SCC (Cri) 106. Wherein Their Lordships of the Apex Court have stated : "We are of the opinion that anticipatory bail should not have been granted in the murder case when the investiga tion was still incomplete. The proper course to adopt was to leave it to the trial Court to do the needful if and when the person concerned was arrested in the light of the record available at that point of time. The order passed by the High Court is, therefore, set aside...... We have set aside the order under appeal on principle." Pokar Ram v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1985 SC 969 : (1985 Cri LJ 1175) was also cited in which the Supreme Court has held as follows (Paras 5 and 6) :