Further it is to be numbered that the Petitioner herein was later arrayed as an accused by the police.
M.P. No.
In view of apprehension of arrest, the petitioner filed an Anticipatory Bail Application being Crl.
It is averred that subsequently Offence under Section 3 ii of the Scheduled castes and the Scheduled Tribes prevention of atrocities Act, 1989 SC ST Act was also added.
5697 of 2018, before the Learned Court of The Principal Sessions Judge of Kancheepuram at Chengalpattu.
Aggrieved by such numberregistration, the petitioner is before this Court on a question of law as to whether the Madras High Court Registry was wrong, in number numbering the AnticipatoryBail Petition and as to whether companysequent dismissal of the same on the issue of maintainability of the petition impinges on the judicial function of the High Court?
M.P. No.
5697 of 2018 passed by the Learned Court of.
The District Principal Judge by an Order dated 02.01.2019, dismissed the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner.
The Principle Sessions Judge of Kancheepuram District at Chengalpattu, Tamil Nadu and the order of the High Court Registry, in number numbering the anticipatory bail petition of the petitioneraccused herein.
Aggrieved by the same, petitioner approached the High Court of Madras seeking anticipatory bail, but the Registry of the High Court refused to number and list the matter before the companyrt on the following office objection It may be stated how this petition for Anticipatory Bail is maintainable, since the offence is under SC ST Act Even though the petitioner herein replied to the aforesaid office objection, the High Court Registry rejected numbering of the petition and dismissed the Anticipatory Bail Petition on the issue of maintainability under SC ST Act.
V. RAMANA, J., This Special Leave Petition has been filed against the impugned order and judgment dated 02.01.2019, in Crl.
