This petition has been filed to cancel the Anticipatory bail granted to the first respondent herein, in Cr. M.P. No. 5859 of 2015, dated 01.10.2015 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai.

2. The first respondent and other accused have been charged for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 468, 471 of IPC. The first respondent/A1 and A2 filed anticipatory bail petition before the Principal Sessions Court, Madurai, in Cr. M.P. No. 5859 of 2015. By order, dated 01.10.2015, the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai granted anticipatory bail to the first respondent/A1 and dismissed the anticipatory bail petition with regard to A2. Now, the petitioner has come out with the present petition for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the first respondent/A1.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai did not consider the allegation made against the first respondent/A1 in the FIR and the serious nature of offence committed by the first respondent and his son A2 that they have not only received Rs.7,00,000/- from the petitioner, for securing a job in the Madurai Kamaraj University, but also issued forged appointment order. Therefore, the order of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai is illegal and liable to be set aside.

4. There is no representation on behalf of the first respondent/A1.

5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) submitted that based on the complaint given by the petitioner, case has been registered against the first respondent and his son A2 and Investigation is pending.

6. A reading of the FIR shows that the first respondent/A1 has received money and issued forged appointment order. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai has failed to consider the allegations made against the first respondent.

7. It will be useful to refer the following Judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the High Court of Delhi and the High Court of Bihar.

(i) 2012 (12) SCC 180 [Kanwar Singh Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan and another], wherein in paragraphs 17 and 18, it has been held as follows:-

“17. In any case, the order passed by the High Court releasing the accused involved in a heinous crime on bail, ignoring the relevant material, is legally not tenable. It suffers from serious infirmities. The High Court has exercised its discretionary power in an arbitrary and casual manner. We have also noticed that the incident took place on 19-5-2009 and the accused could be arrested only on 1-6-2011. His two attempts to get anticipatory bail, one from the Sessions Court and the other from the High Court, did not succeed. Assuming that the accused is not likely to flee from justice or after release on bail he has not tried to tamper with the evidence, that is no reason why a legally infirm and untenable order passed in arbitrary exercise of discretion releasing the accused involved in a gruesome crime on bail should be allowed to stand. This order needs to be corrected because it will set a bad precedent. Besides, it will have adverse effect on the trial.

18. Taking an overall view of the matter, we are of the opinion that in the interest of justice, the impugned order granting bail to the accused deserves to be quashed and a direction needs to be given to the police to take the accused in custody. .....”

(ii) 2015 Cri. L.J. 4862 [Neeru Yadav Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another], wherein in paragraphs 15 and 18, it has been held as follows:

“15. This being the position of law, it is clear as cloudless sky that the High Court has totally ignored the criminal antecedents of the accused. What has weighted with the High Court is the doctrine of parity. A history-sheeter involved in the nature of crimes which we have reproduced hereinabove, are not minor offences so that he is not to be retained in custody, but the crimes are of heinous nature and such crimes, by no stretch of imagination, can be regarded as jejune. Such cases do create