AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
David Annoussamy, J.—This is a petition for bail. The accused who is one of the six accused in the case is involved in an offence under S. 4(1)(B) of the T.N. P. Act. As per the prosecution, he is responsible for possessing 1,000 liters of illicit distilled arrack and 3,000 liters of wash. The occurrence was detected on 16th March, 1988. The case of the Petitioner is that he was apprehended, that he has been falsely implicated in the case out of enmity, that he is prepared to appear before the police for due interrogation; that he is a man of means and capable of furnishing sureties.
The case of the learned Public Prosecutor is that though the offence was detected on 16th March, 1988, the accused could not be arrested till now as he has been successfully evading arrest.
At this stage, learned Counsel for the Petitioner stated that the Petitioner was very much available for arrest that, in fact on 24th March, 1988 he has moved the sessions Court for bail, which fact was known to the prosecution.
I am not prepared to accept the version of the learned Public Prosecutor that the Petitioner is evading arrest. It appears that the police is not interested in arresting the person. In fact under S. 41, Crl.P.C, arrest need not be resorted to automatically in all cases. Police officer has got a large discretion to arrest or not to arrest a person. It appears that the police officer has in this case exercised his discretion in favour of the accused, and he has forfeited thereby his right to arrest thereafter without warrant, and the accused can be secured only through a warrant issued by the court. Under these circumstances this petition for anticipatory bail is objectless and is dismissed.