SENNASI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these petitions have been filed for anticipatory bail and these petitioners would state that they have been falsely implicated in the offences out of enmity and therefore, they might be released on anticipatory bail.

(2.) Mr. Shanmugasundaram, learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondents in these petitions, would submit that in all these cases, the trial Magistrate have issued non-bailable warrants against these petitioners and therefore, these petitioners cannot be released on bail. As this Court in Sundaram & Ors. v. State, has held that when non-bailable warrant was issued by the Court before which the charge sheet has been filed, the procedure would be to approach that Court and file application for cancellation of the warrant and Section 438 Code of Criminal Procedure is not the remedy for seeking bail, in view of this decision, the learned Public Prosecutor contended that all these petitions are not maintainable before the High Court seeking anticipatory bail when non-bailable warrant is pending against these petitioners and the petitions are liable to be dismissed.

(3.) However, the learned counsels appearing for these petitioners, submitted that the views of the other High Courts and the latest view of the Supreme Court are different from that of this Court and therefore, the petitioners are entitled to seek anticipatory bail under Section 438 Code of Criminal Procedure. As the common question arose in all these petitions, they were listed as a batch and were heard in common.