The court considered the issuance of a non-bailable warrant and granted anticipatory bail based on lack of direct involvement in other cases and completion of investigation.

The petitioner, who has been arrayed as A-14 out of 30 accused in this case, apprehends arrest on the basis of the issue of Non-Bailable Warrant issued against him after filing charge sheet in this case in P.R.C.No.28 of 2009 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Perundurai, for the alleged offence under Sections 147, 148, 448, 452, 365, 354, 386, 395, 427, 506 (ii) and 120(b) IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992.

1. Mr.N.Jothi, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been implicated on the allegation of conspiracy and his name was not mentioned in the First Information Report (F.I.R.) which was sent through post and registered in Crime No.650 of 2008. It is contended that there are only general allegations made against the petitioner to the effect that the petitioner received phone calls from some of the assailants. It is further submitted that the further allegation is to the effect that three named persons in the F.I.R. alleged to have asked the complainant to come for a settlement talks before the petitioner, but the complainant refused to attend the said settlements and on the date of occurrence three accused persons named in the F.I.R. along with their henchmen came to the land of the complainant, started levelling the land forcibly and during the course of the said transaction, the brother of the complainant P.C.Palanisamy, brothers wife Malarvishi and their son Sivabalan were kidnapped and thereafter, they were forced to sign the registered partition deed dated 23.07.2008.

2. The learned counsel would further submit that in the meantime one Elangovan, son-in-law of P.C.Palanisamy, filed H.C.P.No.1092 of 2008 for production of P.C.Palanisamy, his wife Malarvishi and their son Sivabalan and the said Sivabalan was produced before this Court on 28.07.2008 and his parents were produced before this Court on 29.07.2008 and on the basis of the statement of the alleged detenue Sivabalan, the offences were altered to Sections 147, 148, 452, 447, 427, 365, 386, 379 and 506 (ii) IPC on 28.07.2008.

3. It is submitted that thereafter one Subramani has filed H.C.P.No.1114 of 2008 for the production of his brother-in-law one Guhamani and the said Guhamani was produced before this Court on 26.08.2008 and thereafter, both the HCPs in H.C.P.Nos.1092 and 1114 of 2008 were closed on 27.08.2008 and the orders were also confirmed by the Honble Supreme Court.

4. The learned counsel would contend vehemently that the petitioner has been implicated due to political vendetta and at the instance of the political rivalries only with ulterior motive to scandalise the petitioner. It is contended that except making allegation of conspiracy and instigation, there is no other allegation and not an iota of legal evidence available against the petitioner to sustain the prosecution case. It is contended that the petitioner, who was a Minister of the state Government likely to receive number of phone calls from several persons for various purposes and merely because the petitioner alleged to have received some phone calls from some of the assailants, the petitioner could not have been fastened with the liability of the alleged offence.

5. The learned counsel would submit that as on date, all the other accused have already been released on bail by this Court and the investigation is over after examining the witnesses under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and the final report was filed before the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Perundurai, and the same was taken on file in P.R.C.No.28 of 2009. The learned counsel would further contend that the learned Magistrate instead of issuing summons for the appearance of the petitioner, straight-away issued non-bailable warrant against the petitioner and as such, the petitioner is having apprehension of arrest at the hands of the respondent police. It is submitted that the peti