Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: bail petition in R. Anburaj vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 5 September, 2019Matching Fragments
Thus, the aforesaid act of hearing the bail petition hurriedly on 24.06.2013 by altering the hearing date reveals your personal interest in hearing the said bail petition on the only day available to you and your aforesaid act with dishonest motive is unbecoming of a judicial officer and if proved, renders yourself liable to be proceeded under 20 (1) of Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules and Rule 17 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Servants (Discipline and Appeal Rules).
Charge No.2:- That you, Thiru. R. Anburaj, while incharge of Principal District and Sessions Judge Court, Dharmapuri, on 24.06.2013, had insisted the Head Clerk, Thiru. Selvaraju to number the bail petition filed by Dr. Ganesan and made the said bail petition Crl.M.P. No. 2497 of 2013 to be called in the open court though the petition did not find a place in the list of bail applications to be heard on that day 24.06.2013 Thus, the aforesaid act of hearing the bail petition hurriedly on 24.06.2013 by listing the bail petition, though it was not listed in the said day reveals your personal interest in hearing the said bail petition on the only day available to you and your aforesaid act with dishonest motive is unbecoming of a judicial officer and if proved, renders yourself liable to be proceeded under 20 (1) of Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules and Rule 17 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Servants (Discipline and Appeal Rules).
Charge No.4:- That you, Thiru. R. Anburaj, while incharge of Principal District and Sessions Judge Court, Dharmapuri on 24.06.2013, when you dealt with the bail petition Crl.M.P. No. 2497 of 2013 (3rd accused) you did not find fault with Dr.Ganesan, who applied for bail in District Court, Dharmapuri on 21.06.2013 by fraudulently stating that his bail petition Crl.MP No. http://www.judis.nic.in 2592 of 2013 before the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate wp 492 of 2018 Court, Pennagaram was dismissed on 21.06.2013, though you had called for the bundle from the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Pennagaram and was aware that it was pending on 21.06.2013 and was dismissed by the District Munsif-cum- Judicial Magistrate Court, Pennagaram only on 24.06.2013, you had granted interim bail to him on 24.06.2013.
16. We have heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the materials placed on record. The charges levelled against the petitioner relates to his dishonest motive and lack of integrity in granting bail to an accused on 24.06.2013 inspite of stiff opposition by the Additional Public Prosecutor. The crux of the charges levelled against the petitioner is that when he was in-charge of the Court of Principal District Judge in the place of the regular Principal Judge between 21.06.2013 (Friday) and 24.06.2013 (Monday), on 21.06.2013, on the basis of a http://www.judis.nic.in wp 492 of 2018 representation made by DW1 to take up Crl.M.P. No. 2497 of 2013 filed on behalf of the third accused-Dr. Ganesan in Crime No. 29 of 2013, he had directed the PW5 to alter the date of hearing of the petition from 25.06.2013 to 24.06.2013, so as to enable him to take up the petition purportedly to show undue favouritism to the accused therein. Further, the taking up of the bail petition by the petitioner on 24.06.2013 was opposed by the Additional Public Prosecutor (DW2) to the effect that a similar bail petition has been filed on behalf of the accused in Crl.M.P. No. 2592 of 2013 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Pennagaram and it is pending, while so, a parallel petition filed in Crl.M.P. No. 2497 of 2013 need not be entertained. DW2 also further opposed the grant of bail on the ground that the investigation in Crime No. 29 of 2013 is likely to be transferred to CB CID. Despite such objections, the petitioner had taken up the Petition in Crl.M.P. No. 2497 of 2013, called for the records from the Judicial Magistrate, Pennagaram in Crl.M.P. No. 2592 of 2013 and found that Crl.M.P. No. 2592 of 2013 was dismissed in the morning and granted interim bail to the accused therein on the same day namely 24.06.2013.