S SHANMUGAM Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Original Petition has been brought forth seeking cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thanjavur in Cr1. M. P. No. 1377/2004 in favour of the Respondents 2 to 6 herein.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY, a case came to be registered by the 1st respondent Police against the Respondents 2 to 6 in Cr. No. 123/2004 under Sections 147, 148, 294 (b), 323 and 506 (2) of IPC and they sought for anticipatory bail before the Court of Sessions and the matter came up for consideration before the said Court in Cr1. M. P. No. 1377/2004, the learned Sessions Judge while granting anticipatory bail, inter-alia imposed a condition that they should appear before 1st respondent Police daily at 10. 00 a. m. and 6. 00 pm. without fail until further orders. None of the Respondents 2 to 6 obeyed the orders of the court in following the conditions. Under such circumstances, the petitioner, who is the defacto complainant, brought the matter to the notice of the Judicial Magistrate concerned and at the time of the enquiry, it was brought to the notice of the Magistrate concerned by the concerned Police that the Respondents 2 to 6 have never obeyed the conditions as ordered by the court and the same was also recorded in that order, which is now placed in the hands of this Court. However, the Magistrate concerned could not pass any order, since it was an order of anticipatory bail granted by the Sessions Court. In such circumstances, the learned Magistrate has directed the Respondent Police to instruct the Public Prosecutor for the State to take necessary steps before the Court of Sessions. On the contrary, when the Respondents 2 to 6 sought for relaxation of the condition before the court of Sessions, the Public Prosecutor has submitted that the investigation in the case is over and hence, he has no objection for relaxation of the condition and accordingly the conditions have been completely relaxed.

(3.) A perusal of the records and the submissions made by both sides, all the above would be indicative of the fact that the Respondents 2 to 6 have thoroughly violated the order in not observing the conditions imposed by the Court of Sessions at the time of granting anticipatory bail and they sought for relaxation of the conditions by making a specific averment in the application that they have been strictly following the conditions by reporting to the Police Station and it is nothing but a statement of falsehood. In such circumstances, this court without any hesitation whatsoever, has to necessary cancel the anticipatory bail originally ordered by the Court of Sessions. The learned counsel for the Respondents 2 to 6 would submit that a charge sheet has been laid and PW. 1 has been examined and hence, the order of the lower court granting anticipatory bail need not be cancelled. While the Respondents 2 to 6 have not obeyed the conditions imposed by the court of Sessions, they have also made an application with false averments and in the opinion of this court, that would be suffice to cancel the anticipatory bail and accordingly the order of anticipatory bail granted earlier by the Sessions Court in Cr1. M. P. No. 1377/2004 is hereby cancelled by this order of this court and this Criminal Original Petition is ordered. Petition allowed.