The court established that serious allegations of violence against law enforcement justify the denial of bail, regardless of procedural non-compliance, especially when co-accused remain at large.

ORDER

Rajendra Badamikar, J.

These petitions are filed by Accused Nos.4, 5 & 6 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., for enlarging them on regular bail in Crime No.33/2024 of Tilak Park Police Station, Tumakuru District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 341, 427, 332, 353, 307, 387, 114 read with 149 of IPC, pending on the file of III Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC Court, Tumakuru District.

2. The petitioners in Criminal Petition No.3377/2024 are arraigned as Accused Nos. 4 & 5 and the petitioner in Criminal Petition No.3423/2024 is arraigned as Accused No.6.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned HCGP for the Respondent-State. Perused the records.

4. The allegation of the prosecution discloses that, the complainant is a police constable of Rayapuram Police Station, Old Washermenpet District. It is alleged that Accused No.2 is an accused in SC No.319/2023 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge at Chennai City pertaining to the offences under Sections 341, 294-B, 336, 427, 392 r/w. 397 and 506(ii) of IPC. A Non-bailable Warrant was issued by the Principal Sessions Judge at Chennai against Accused No.2 in SC No.319/2023 and the Police Officers got an information that, Accused No.2 is in Melekote at Tumakuru District. Then the First Informant along with other Police Officers had been to Melekote on 14.03.2024 in Swift Car bearing Registration No.TN.03.AD.2030 at about 8.00 p.m. and they traced-out Accused No.2 within the jurisdiction of Tilak Park Police Station of Tumakuru District, near TOYOTO Show Room and took him to custody and in a car they were proceeding towards Tilak Park Police Station. By that time, the wife of Accused No.2 ie., Accused No.1 has raised hue and cry and secured her relatives immediately and as a result, the petitioners and others came near the vehicle and started threatening the complainant and other Police Officers. Further, they wrongfully restrained the car uttering that they are going to set fire to the car and pelted stones towards the car indiscriminately and damaged the car. It is also alleged that, they have also assaulted the complainant and others by clubs by attempting on their lives. When the complainant and others revealed their identity and shown the Non-bailable Warrant issued by the Chennai Court, they torn the warrant and continued their illegal acts and in the said process, Accused No.2 fled from the spot and thereby the petitioners facilitated him in escaping. Then the complainant and other Police Officers obtained treatment and went to Tilak Park Police Station at Tumkauru, wherein a complaint was lodged by the complainant/First Informant, who himself was a police constable. On the basis of the complaint, FIR came to be issued. Then the Investigating Officer arrested the petitioners and they were produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate and they were remanded to custody. The petitioners have approached the learned Sessions Judge by filing petitions seeking bail and their bail petitions came to be rejected. Hence, the petitioners are before this Court.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that, since the provisions of Section 41-B of Cr.P.C. are not complied, the ingredients of Section 307 are not attracted and the said offence is incorporated only to aggravate the offence. He would also contend that the complainant and other Police Officers were not in Uniform and the Car was also not of the Police Department and it is a private car and hence, there are laches on the part of the prosecution. He also asserted that, the petitioners being innocents have been picked from their respective houses. He would contend that, the petitioners are the permanent residents of Melekote area of Tumkuru and they would undertake to abide by all the terms and conditions to be imposed by this Court and sought for admitting the petitioners on regular bail.

6. Per contra, the learned HCGP would contend that, Acc