DHANAPAL Vs. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Calling in question the legality and validity of the communication dated 12.07.2018 issued by the respondent, the petitioner has come up with this writ petition.

(2.) According to the petitioner, he was working in the HR&CE Department, without any remarks and reached the position upto Commissioner and now retired from service. While so, he was implicated as one of the accused in Crime No.1 of 2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 403, 409, 418, 420 r/w 120-B and 477-A IPC . Apprehending arrest, he moved an anticipatory petition in Crl.OP.(MD) No.9928 of 2018, which was allowed by this Court, vide order dated 21.06.2018, subject to the following conditions:

(3.) Upon notice, the respondent filed their reply affidavit, stating inter alia that they deployed one Sub Inspector and four Head Constables, which was the minimum required strength for the surveillance duty; since no separate Government Order or guidelines are available specifically for calculating the cost of surveillance duty, the amount payable by the petitioner was calculated based on the amount payable for guard duty charges as per G.O.Ms.No.249, Home (Pol.VIII) Department, dated 21.03.2017; and the payment of surveillance charges, by no stretch of imagination, can be construed as punishment before trial and it is nothing but compliance of conditions imposed by this Court, while granting anticipatory bail.