He also reliedon the judgement of the Division Bench of this Court in Snitha v. Additional ChiefSecretary to Government, reported in

CRL OP(MD). No.439 of 2025BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction )Date : 21/01/2025PRESENTThe HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESHCRL OP(MD). No.439 of 2025Mohammed Tharik Anvar @ Tharik,S/o Rajamohamad, No. 27(1) Pulavar 1st Street, Begampur, Pallapatti (Po), Dindigul District. 624 002. ... Petitioner/Accused No.1 VsThe State of Tamil Nadu,Rep by the Inspector of Police, Dindigul Town North Ps, Dindigul District. Crime No. 1292/2024. ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.Karuppasamy Pandian, Advocate for Mr.S.Vishnuvardhan, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr.S.Ravi, Additional Public Prosecutor ORDER Today, the matter is listed under the caption “for being mentioned”. The bailpetition came up for hearing yesterday and this Court after considering thesubmission made on either side and after recording the submission made by thelearned Additional Public Prosecutor to the effect that steps are being taken to pass1/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.439 of 2025detention order under Act 14 of 1982, was pleased to grant bail to the petitioner andthe order was dictated in the open Court. 2. During the course of Court proceedings, the learned Additional PublicProsecutor brought to the notice of this Court that the detention order has alreadybeen passed against the petitioner and the copy of the same was also placed beforethis Court.3. In the light of the said submission made by the learned Additional PublicProsecutor, the matter was directed to be listed to-day under the caption “for beingmentioned.4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the provisions of thedetention law is being misused in this case by the respondent police and that thepassing of the detention order cannot be be a bar for this Court to grant bail to thepetitioner.5.The learned counsel for the petitioner, in order to substantiate hissubmissions, relied upon the judgement of the Apex Court in Nenavath Bujji Etc. Vs.The State of Telangana reported in [2024] 3 SCR 1181 : 2024 INSC 239. He also reliedon the judgement of the Division Bench of this Court in Snitha Vs. Additional ChiefSecretary to Government, reported in 2022(3) Mad WN (Cri) 430.6. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.439 of 2025detention order was already passed against the petitioner by the time the bail orderwas passed by this Court against the petitioner and hence the petitioner has toindependently challenge the same and work out his remedy in accordance with lawand that the petitioner will not be entitled to be enlarged on bail, when the detentionorder is in force. 7. In order to appreciate the above submissions, the order passed yesterday isreproduced hereunder:2. The case of the prosecution is that on 27.12.2024, the petitioner is said to haveway-laid the defacto complainant and at knife point, robbed a sum of Rs.1000/- fromthe defacto complainant and also threatened him with dire consequences.3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondentPolice submitted that the petitioner is a habitual criminal, who has seven previouscases against him, out of which, one is a murder case and two cases are for offencesunder the NDPS Act. He further submitted that there are two rival gangs that areoperating in Dindigul and this petitioner belongs to one of the gang. It was furthersubmitted that in the murder case, there was already a retaliation and accused No.2in that case was done to death by the rival gang. He concluded his arguments bysubmitting that already steps are being taken to detain the petitioner under Act 14 of1982. Hence, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.439 of 2025of bail to the petitioner. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that afalse case has been foisted against the petitioner and the present First InformationReport has been registered only to detain the petitioner under Act 14 of 1982. Hefurther submitted that even in the murder case, the petitioner was enlarged on bailand in two of the cases, the petitioner was already acquitted by the trial Court.5. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side andthe materials available on record. This Court also had the advantage of goingthrough the previous cases that are pending against the petitioner. 6. This Court makes it clear that steps that are taken to pass detention orderagainst the petitioner under Act 14 of 1982, will not in any way tie the hands of thisCourt to consider the bail application. In other words, this Court cannot keep the bailapplication pending to enable the authority to pass the detention order. This Courthas to independently deal with the bail application on its own merits.7. In the instant case, the petitioner is alleged to have robbed a sum of Rs.1000/-from the defacto complainant by showing a knife. For this offence, the petitioner hassuffered incarceration from 28.12.2024. Surprisingly, till date, test identificationparade has not been conducted and the petitioner has not even been taken on policecustody. On going through the list of cases pending against the petitioner, it is seen4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.439 of 2025that there is one murder case pending investigation in Crime No.447 of 2023 beforethe Dindigul North Police Station. Two other cases are under the NDPS Act in whichintermediate quantity is involved. This Court also takes into consideration the factthat the petitioner has suffered incarceration from 28.12.2024. This Court also takesinto consideration the submissions of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor thatthere is a chance of retaliation in this case. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant bailto the petitioner subject to the following conditions.8. Accordingly, the criminal original petition is ordered and the petitioner isordered to be released on bail on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupeesten thousand only) with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of thelearned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul and on further conditions that:- [a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in thesurety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank passBook to ensure their identity. [b] the petitioner shall stay at Trichy and report before the Fort Police Station dailyat 10.30 a.m. and 05.30 p.m. until further orders. [c] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either duringinvestigation or trial. [d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial. 5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.439 of 2025 [e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Courtis entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law asif the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learnedMagistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court inP.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560].[f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered underSection 269 of BNS, 2023.8. The legality or otherwise of the detention order passed against the petitionercannot be gone into by the bail Court and it has to be agitated only before theconcerned Bench, which is dealing with the portfolio.9. However, mere passing of the detention order against the petitioner cannotbe a bar for deciding the bail application filed by the petitioner. Hence, the orderpassed yesterday shall stand as it is and liberty is granted to the petitioner to workout his remedy against the detention order passed against him.10. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of. sd/- 21/01/2025 / TRUE COPY / 21/01/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar ( C.S. I / II / III / IV ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. 6/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.439 of 2025SMATO1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.II,DINDIGUL.2 DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIALMAGISTRATE, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.3 THE OFFICER INCHARGE,DISTRICT JAIL, DINDIGUL. 4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DINDIGUL TOWN NORTH PS, DINDIGUL DISTRICT. 5 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. COPY TO:THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,FORT POLICE STATION,TRICHY. ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.439 of 2025 Date :21/01/2025 SA/SAR. /21.01.2025/7P/7CMadurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023. 7/7