The petitioner apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences under Sections 147, 447, 379, 120 (B) IPC and Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 in Crime No.671 of 2008 on the file of the respondent police and seeks anticipatory bail.

2.0. Mr.N.Jothi, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the case of the prosecution is that an earlier incident took place between the parties on 22.07.2008 and a case was registered in Crime No.650 of 2008 under Sections 147, 148, 427 and 363 IPC. It is submitted that in this case the occurrence is said to have taken place on 25.07.2008 and the case was registered on the basis of the complaint preferred by one Subramani alleging that on the date of occurrence, i.e., on 25.07.2008, four named accused and others had caused damage to the house of the complainant in Crime No.650 of 2008. The said complaint was dated 26.07.2008 and the same was received by the Perundurai police through post and the case was registered in Crime No.671 of 2008 for the alleged offences under Sections 147, 447, 379 and 120(B) IPC and Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage an Loss) Act, 1992.

2.1. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the name of the petitioner was not mentioned in the First Information Report and he has been implicated subsequently only at the time of filing the final report as the petitioner has been arrayed as A-8 out of 18 accused. It is contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case due to political vendetta. It is submitted that all the other accused have been granted bail and anticipatory bail. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the petitioner has been served with the summons in P.R.C.No.35 of 2009 on the file of the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Perundurai, and the petitioner has appeared before the learned Magistrate for two hearings and the case is posted for committal on 27.01.2010. It is contended that in view of the case is posted for committal, the petitioner is having reasonable apprehension that he may likely to be remanded for judicial custody and as such, the petitioner has been constrained to file this petition seeking for the relief of anticipatory bail.

2.2. It is further pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as the petitioner has appeared earlier for two hearings before the learned Magistrate and he, being a sitting Member of Legislative Assembly (M.L.A.), is not likely to abscond and he will face the trial and defend the case. Therefore, it is contended that there is absolutely no need for remanding the petitioner for judicial custody at the time of committal.

2.3. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner would place reliance on the following decisions :

(1)Karuna alias Karunakaran V. State by Inspector of Police reported in 1989 L.W. (Cri.) 313 ;

(2)Free Legal Aid Committee, Jamshedpur V. State of Bihar reported in (1982) 3 SCC 378 ;

(3)Annamalai V. Inspector, C.B. (CID), Vellore reported in 1985 L.W. (Crl.) 334;

(4)Subbiah, in re. reported in 1981 L.W. Crl.356 ;

(5)Thomas and 3 others, in re. reported in 1982 L.W.(Crl.) 88 ; and

(6)P.V.Narasimha Rao V. State (CBI) reported in 1997 Cri.L.J. 961 ;

2.4. By placing reliance on the above said decisions, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Hon'ble Apex Court has taken a view consistently to the effect that in the event of any accused appearing before a Magistrate at the stage of committal, the said accused need not be remanded and on the other hand, he has to be bind over by furnishing sureties and thereafter, the case may be committed to the Court of Session for regular trial. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Delhi High Court in P.V.Narasimha Rao V. State (CBI) reported in 1997 Cri.L.J. 961