ORDER :

Lady Justice is the allegorical personification of the moral force in judicial systems. Her attributes are a blindfold, a beam balance, and a sword and the balance denotes that justice needs to be delivered with eyes closed and ears open. True to the said analogy, which has been followed time immemorial, the justice delivery system in our country is following the same to deliver impartial justice to one and all without reference to any of their personal traits.

2. One such case is on board this Court in the form of a member of the legal fraternity being implicated in Crime No.192/2021 for the offences punishable u/s 269, 270, 290, 294 (b), 353 and 506 (i) IPC and Section 51 (b) of the Disaster Management Act. Anticipatory Bail was sought for by the petitioners herein, who were implicated in the said case before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai and on its rejection, the petitioners are before this Court pleading similar relief at the hands of this Court.

3. The sum and substance of the case registered by the respondent police is that the 2nd petitioner was stopped by police officials on duty on the early morning hours (7.15 a.m.) of 6.6.2021, while she was proceeding in her car. There being lockdown guidelines in force, in view of the pandemic that is ravaging the entire human race, and the provisions of the Disaster Management Act having been enforced, the 2nd petitioner's vehicle was stopped and on query as to the reason for the 2nd petitioner coming out during the said period, while it is the version of the 2nd petitioner that she had come out for the purpose of purchasing medicines, however, on behalf of the respondents, it is informed that the 2nd petitioner had stated that she had come out for purchasing fish. It is to be pointed out that the 2nd petitioner was not in possession of a valid pass for going out during the lockdown period.

4. Be that as it may. Enquiry resulted in the 2nd petitioner informing that she has no requisite official permission to come out for the said errand resulting in the law enforcing agency issuing a challan for payment of fine to the tune of Rs.500/-. Here too, two versions relating to payment of fine, one on behalf of the petitioners and other on behalf of the respondents are placed, of which, for reasons stated in the order passed by the Court below, the court below has accepted the version projected by the respondents and this Court for the present is not concerned on the said aspect.

5. The whole melee started only after issuance of the challan. It is the allegation of the prosecution that on the challan being issued, the 2nd petitioner quarreled with the police officials on duty and, thereafter, had a telephonic conversation, which resulted in the arrival of the 1st petitioner at the scene in another car. The resultant scene thereafter is history, which was flashed throughout the length and breadth of the State by the visual media. The overall picture of the said scene, according to the prosecution, is that the 1st petitioner, claiming and proclaiming that she is an advocate, used filthy, abusive and unparliamentary language, used derogatory words and castigated the police officials on duty and in fact threatened them that they will be stripped off their uniforms, if they tried to intervene and cause any hindrance to the movement of the petitioners. So doing, the 1st petitioner escorted the 2nd petitioner to the car which the 2nd petitioner was driving and both the petitioners left in the two cars, in which they had come. The whole scene was enacted in the full view of the general public in which, according to the respondents, the police officials, who were discharging their lawful duty, were smeared all over with mud by the 1st petitioner. Therefore, for total violation of the lockdown guidelines and non-adherence to the provisions of the Disaster Management Act and violation of the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioners were slapped with by filing of the a