C. Naresh Kumar vs Inspector of Police Team IX, Central Crime Branch, Egmore, Chennai and Another

K.N. Basha, J.—These petitions coming on for orders upon perusing the petitions and the affidavit filed in support thereof upon hearing the argument of Mr. D. Vijayababu Advocate for the petitioner [In all the petitions] and Mr. R. Prathap Kumar, Government Advocate (Cri Side) for respondent No. 1 [in all the petitions] and Mr. N. Doraisami legal aid counsel, for the respondent 2 [In all the petitions] and the Court made the following order: The above miscellaneous petitions are filed by the petitioners/defacto complainants to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the 2nd respondent/accused (A2) by this court by the order dated 8.9.2009 for the alleged offence u/s 420 IPC and the order in MP.No. 1./2011 in the abovesaid petition dated 28.4.2011.

The learned counsel for the petitioners 1 defacto complainants contended that in spite of getting the relief of anticipatory bail as early as in the year 2009, till date the 2nd respondent/ accused has not executed the order. It is further contended that in view of the non-compliance of the conditions imposed by this court the anticipatory bail order already granted, is liable to be cancelled.

Mr. N. Doraisamy, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/accused as Legal Aid Counsel would submit that one more opportunity may be given to the 2nd respondent/accused (A2) to execute the order and to comply with the conditions imposed by this Court.

Mr. Prathap Kumar, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that the 2nd respondent/A2 has not appeared before the 1st respondent Police till date inspite of granting the relief of anticipatory bail as early as in the year 2009.

This court carefully considered the submissions made on either side and also perused the order passed by this court.

The fact remains that the 2nd respondent/ A2 in this case has been granted the relief of anticipatory bail by this court by the order dated 8.9.2009 for the alleged offence u/s 420 IPC. It is very unfortunate to note that till date that the 2nd respondent /A2 has not complied with the conditions imposed inspite of obtaining the order as early as in the year 2009. It is seen that the 2nd respondent/accused also not appeared before this court inspite of serving the notice which necessitated this court to appoint Mr. N. Doraisamy, learned counsel as Legal Aid Counsel. Though, this court is of the view that cancellation of bail or anticipatory bail is a harsh one, as far as the case on hand is concerned, it is a fit case wherein the accused had deliberately avoided and evaded to comply with the condition right from the year 2009.

In view of the aforesaid reasons this court is constrained to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the 2nd respondent/A2. Accordingly, the miscellaneous petitions are ordered. Mr. N. Doraisamy, the learned counsel appearing as Legal Aid Counsel for the 2nd respondent/accused (A2) is entitled to for a remuneration of Rs. 3,500 for the commendable service rendered by him. The Secretary, State Legal Aid Services, High Court, Chennai, is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,500 as remuneration to Mr. N. Doraisamy.