G.R. ANANDA BABU Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANOTHER
LAWS(SC)-2021-1-53
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: MADRAS)
Decided on January 28,2021

G.R. Ananda Babu Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANOTHER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 24.11.2020 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Crl. O.P. No. 18412 of 2020, granting anticipatory bail to respondent No. 2 in connection with FIR No. 153 of 2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 436, 302, 307, 149 and 120B of Indian Penal Code.
(2.) The incident in question has occurred on 11.11.2019. Respondent No. 2 applied for anticipatory bail before the High Court first vide Crl. O.P. No. 32759 of 2019, which came to be rejected by a speaking order dated 20.12.2019. Despite rejection of anticipatory bail by the High Court, respondent No.2 after some gap moved another application for anticipatory bail being Crl. O.P. No. 8023 of 2020 which for reasons, cannot be discerned from the record, was heard by another judge. Nevertheless, it was rejected vide a speaking order dated 29.05.2020 and more importantly taking note of the fact that there was no change in circumstances and the investigation was still incomplete. Respondent No. 2 then moved a third anticipatory bail application being Crl. O.P. No. 18412 of 2020, which has been allowed by the impugned judgment by the same Judge, who had rejected the second anticipatory bail application, referred to above, vide order dated 24.11.2020 (impugned order).
(3.) On this occasion, the learned Judge recorded following reasons for acceding to the request for grant of anticipatory bail to respondent No. 2. The same read thus: " (i) The date of occurrence is 11.11.2019. (ii) Other 13 accused were arrested and surrendered, their confessional statements were recorded and they were released on bail. (iii) 127 private witnesses were examined and their statements were recorded. (iv) 12 months is over from the date of occurrence. (v) Six months have passed from the date of dismissal of earlier anticipatory bail application. (vi) The petitioner is aged 69 years alleged to be suffering from age related ailments and he is willing to co-operate with the investigation." ;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.