{"id":164347,"date":"2008-04-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-04-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anbarasan-vs-state-rep-by-the-on-9-april-2008"},"modified":"2016-06-22T07:39:28","modified_gmt":"2016-06-22T02:09:28","slug":"anbarasan-vs-state-rep-by-the-on-9-april-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anbarasan-vs-state-rep-by-the-on-9-april-2008","title":{"rendered":"Anbarasan vs State Rep. By The on 9 April, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Anbarasan vs State Rep. By The on 9 April, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED : 09\/04\/2008\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE  MR. JUSTICE S. NAGAMUTHU\n\nCRL.O.P.(MD)No.3904 of 2008\n\nAnbarasan,\nS\/o. Sakkaraj Devar,\nMeetu Vadakadai,\nRajapalayam,\nVirudhunagar District.\t\t\t...... Petitioner\n\nVs\n\nState rep. by the\nSub Inspector of Police,\nMathur,\nPudukkottai District,\nCrime No.37 of 2008.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t......Respondent\n\n\t\tCriminal Original Petition, filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to set\naside the condition imposed by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial\nMagistrate, Keeranur in Crl.M.P.No.900 of 2008 dated 15.03.2008 regarding\nverification sureties by the Probation Officer and to direct the trial Court to\naccept the sureties without seeking report from the Probation Officer.\n\n\n!For Petitioner\t... Mr. P. Ganapathi Subramanian\n\n^For Respondent\t... Mr. L. Murugan\n\t\t   Government Advocate (Crl. Side)\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
\t\t“Whether a Probation Officer appointed under the Probation of
\nOffenders Act, 1958 can be directed by a Court or a Judicial Magistrate to
\nenquire into the character, conduct or the other details of a person, who offer
\nhimself as surety for the release of an accused, who has been granted bail in a
\ncriminal case” is the question involved in this petition.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t2. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.37 of 2008 on the file
\nof the respondent police for alleged offences under Sections 507 and 509 I.P.C
\nread with Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act, 2002.
\nHe was arrested by the respondent police and later on, the learned District
\nMunsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Keeranur by an order dated 15.03.2008 in
\nCrl.M.P.No.900 of 2008 granted bail to the petitioner. In the said order, the
\nlearned Magistrate has directed the release of the petitioner on execution of a
\npersonal bond with two sureties each for a like sum of Rs.10,000\/-. In the same
\norder, the learned Magistrate has further directed that the permanent residence
\nand the character of the persons, who offer themselves as sureties, shall be
\nverified by the Probation Officer. The petitioner challenges the said condition
\nviz., the direction for verification of the permanent residence and the
\ncharacter of the sureties by the Probation Officer.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t3. Before going into the other details of the case, it is worthwhile
\nto refer to the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure relating
\nto Sureties. Section 441 of Cr.P.C reads as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t“441. Bond of accused and sureties:- (1) Before any person is
\nreleased on bail or released on his own bond, a bond for such sum of money as
\nthe police officer or Court, as the case may be, thinks sufficient shall be
\nexecuted by such person, and, when he is released on bail, by one or more
\nsufficient sureties conditioned that such person shall attend at the time and
\nplace mentioned in the bond, and shall continue so to attend until otherwise
\ndirected by the police officer or Court, as the case may be.
\n\t(2) Where any condition is imposed for the release of any person on bail,
\nthe bond shall also contain that condition.\n<\/p>\n
\t(3) If the case so requires, the bond shall also bind the person released
\non bail to appear when called upon at the High Court, Court of Session or other
\nCourt to answer the Charge.\n<\/p>\n
\t(4) For the purpose of determining whether the sureties are fit or
\nsufficient, the Court may accept affidavits in proof of the facts contained
\ntherein relating to the sufficiency or fitness of the sureties, or, if it
\nconsiders necessary, may either hold an inquiry itself or cause an inquiry to be
\nmade by a Magistrate subordinate to the Court, as to such sufficiency or
\nfitness.”\n<\/p>\n
\t441-A. Declaration by sureties:- Every person standing surety to an
\naccused person for his release on bail, shall make a declaration before the
\nCourt as to the number of persons to whom he has stood surety including the
\naccused, giving therein all the relevant particulars.”
\nA close reading of sub-clause (4) of Section 441 of Cr.P.C would go to show that
\nfor the purpose of determining whether the sureties are fit or sufficient, the
\nCourt has two options before it viz., either to accept the affidavit in proof of
\nthe facts contained therein relating to the sufficiency or fitness of the
\nsureties or the Court may in appropriate cases hold an enquiry itself or cause
\nan enquiry to be made by a Magistrate subordinate to the Court regarding the
\nsufficiency or fitness of the sureties. This provision does not empower the
\nMagistrate to direct an enquiry to be held by a Probation Officer. A plain
\nreading of the above said clause would make it manifestly clear that either the
\nMagistrate or the Court before which the sureties stand shall enquire or may
\ndirect any Magistrate, who is subordinate it to hold the said enquiry.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t4. Now, it is necessary to refer to the provisions of the Probation
\nof Offenders Act, 1958 dealing with his powers and duties. Section 2(b) of the
\nAct defines the term “Probation Officer”, which is as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t“(b) “Probation Officer” means an officer appointed to be a
\nprobation officer or recognized as such under Section 13″.
\nSection 13 of the Act speaks of the appointment of Probation Officer and Section
\n14 of the Act provides for duties of the Probation Officer. Section 14 of the
\nAct reads as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t“14. Duties of Probation Officer:- A probation Officer shall, subject to
\nsuch conditions and restrictions, as may be prescribed, –\n<\/p>\n
\t(a) inquire, in accordance with any directions of a Court, into the
\ncircumstances or home surrounding of any person accused of an offence with a
\nview to assist the Court in determining the most suitable method of dealing with
\nhim and submit reports to the Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t(b) supervise probationers and other persons placed under his supervision
\nand, where necessary, endeavour to find them suitable employment;\n<\/p>\n
\t(c) advise and assist offenders in the payment of compensation or costs
\nordered by the Court;\n<\/p>\n
\t(d) advise and assist in such cases and in such manner, as may be
\nprescribed, persons who have been released under Section 4 and\n<\/p>\n
\t(e) perform such other duties as may be prescribed. ”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t5. Similarly, Rule 20 of the Tamil Nadu Probation of Offenders
\nRules, 1962 deals with other duties of Probation Officer, which is as follows:-
\n\t“20. Other duties of Probation Officer:- The Probation Officer may also
\nundertake the following functions:-\n<\/p>\n
\t(1) Educating the public and mobilizing support for the probation system;
\n\t(2) mobilizing public assistance and co-operation in the field of social
\ndefence;\n<\/p>\n
\t(3) being in charge of any institution or other premises referred to in
\nRule 31 that may be assigned;\n<\/p>\n
\t(4) any other duties of cognate nature which may be assigned by order of
\nthe State Government;\n<\/p>\n
\t\t6. A conjoint reading of the above two provisions would go to show
\nthat the duties of the Probation Officer are only to the extent enumerated in
\nSection 14 of the Act and Rule 20 of the Rules. Nowhere in these two provisions
\nany thing has been said about power of the supervision or enquiry or
\nverification of the antecedents, character and the fitness of persons other than
\noffenders by the Probation Officer. Thus, going by the plain reading of these
\ntwo provisions, I have no difficulty in holding that the Probation Officer
\ncannot be directed by any Criminal Court including Judicial Magistrates to
\nenquire into the fitness or sufficiency of a surety and to submit a report to
\nhim.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t7. Now, let me analyse various judgments cited at the bar. In the
\ndecision reported in Hussainara Khatoon and others ..Vs.. Home Secretary, State
\nof Bihar (A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 1360)  the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as
\nfollows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t“The enquiry into the solvency of the accused can become a source of
\ngreat harassment to him and often result in denial of bail and deprivation of
\nliberty and should not, therefore, be insisted upon as a condition of acceptance
\nof the personal bond. We have no doubt that if the system of bail, even under
\nthe existing law, is administered in the manner we have indicated in this
\nJudgment, it would go a long way towards relieving hardship of the poor and help
\nthem to secure pre-trial release from incarceration.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t8. In the decision reported in Moti Ram and others ..Vs.. State of
\nMadhya Pradesh (A.I.R. 1978 S.C 1594)  the Supreme Court has held as follows:-
\n\t“22. A semantic smog overlays the provisions of bail in the Code and
\nprisoners’ rights, when cast in ambiguous language become precarious. Where
\ndoubts arise the Gandhian talisman becomes a tool of interpretation: “Whenever
\nyou are in doubt … apply the following test. Recall the face of the poorest
\nand the weakest man whom you may have seen, and ask yourself, if the step you
\ncontemplate is going to be of any use to him”. Law, at the service of life, must
\nrespond interpretatively to raw realities and make for liberties.\n<\/p>\n
\t31. It shocks one’s conscience to ask a mason like the petitioner to
\nfurnish sureties for Rs.10,000\/-. The Magistrate must be given the benefit of
\ndoubt for not fully appreciating that our Constitution, enacted by “We, the
\npeople of India”, is meant for the butcher, the baker and the candle – stick
\nmaker – shall we add, the bonded labour and pavement dweller.\n<\/p>\n
\t32. To add insult to injury, the magistrate has demanded sureties from his
\nown district! (We assume the allegation in the petition). What is a Malayalees,
\nKannadiga, Tamil or Telugu to do if arrested for alleged misappropriation or
\ntheft or criminal trespass in Bastar, Port Blair, Pahalgam or Chandni Chowk? He
\ncannot have sureties owning properties in these distant places. He may not know
\nany one there and might have come in a batch or to seek a job or in a morcha.
\nJudicial disruption of Indian unity is surest achieved by such provincial
\nallergies. What law prescribes sureties from outside or non-regional language
\napplications? What law prescribes the geographical discrimination implicit in
\nasking for sureties from the Court district? This tendency takes many forms,
\nsome times, geographic, sometimes linguistic, sometimes legalistic. Art.14
\nprotects all indian qua indians, within the territory of India. Art. 350
\nsanctions representation to any authority, including a Court, for redress of
\ngrievances in any language used in the Union of India. Equality before the law
\nimplies that even a vakalat or affirmation made in any State language according
\nto the law in that State must be accepted everwhere in the territory of India
\nsave where a valid legislation to the contrary exists. Otherwise, an adivasi
\nwill be unfree in Free India, and likewise many other minorities. This
\ndivagation has become necessary to still the judicial beginnings, and to inhibit
\nthe process of making Indians aliens in their own homeland. Swaraj is made of
\nunited stuff”.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t9. In the decision reported in State of Rajasthan ..Vs.. Lalsingh
\n(1987 Crl.L.J. 269), a single Judge of Rajasthan High Court has held as follows:
\n\t“If the personal bond and surety bonds are furnished and affidavit is
\nfiled by the surety about his status, generally the same should be accepted. If
\nthe Court has any doubt, then the proper course is to accept it as an interim
\nmeasure, release the accused and then send it for verification and if on
\nverification the status of surety is found less, then the accused should be
\ncalled upon to furnish fresh surety in the amount for which he has been ordered
\nto furnish.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t10. Keeping in view the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
\nand the Rajasthan High Court as extracted above and also having analysed the
\nprovisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Probation of Offenders Act,
\nI am of the considered opinion that no Court including a Magistrate has any
\npower to order an enquiry to be held by Probation Officer with reference to the
\nfitness or sufficiency of the sureties. The Probation Officer has got neither
\nduty nor power to enquire into the character, conduct and related matters in
\nrespect of persons who are not offenders. I am informed by the Bar that in many
\nCourts in this State, the practice of directing the Probation Officers to
\nenquire into the sufficiency and fitness of the sureties is followed and in the
\nresult until such report is received the accused are made to languish in jails.
\nIt is really shocking as the same is against the fundamental rights guaranteed
\nunder the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t11. For all the above reasons, this petition is allowed and the
\nimpugned order dated 15.03.2008 of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial
\nMagistrate, Keeranur in Crl.M.P.No.900 of 2008 directing the sureties to be
\nverified by the Probation Officer is set aside. It is made clear that in future
\nthe criminal courts in the
\nState would do well in strictly adhering to the provisions of law quoted above
\nand also will have regard for the personal liberty of individuals while dealing
\nwith such matters relating to bail.\n<\/p>\n
Dpn\/-\n<\/p>\n
To:\n<\/p>\n
1. The Principal District Judge,
\n    Pudukkottai.\n<\/p>\n
2. The Additional District and Sessions
\n    Judge, Pudukkottai.\n<\/p>\n
3. The District Munsif cum
\n    Judicial Magistrate,
\n    Keeranur.\n<\/p>\n
4. The Public Prosecutor,
\n    Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
\n    Madurai.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Anbarasan vs State Rep. By The on 9 April, 2008 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 09\/04\/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. NAGAMUTHU CRL.O.P.(MD)No.3904 of 2008 Anbarasan, S\/o. Sakkaraj Devar, Meetu Vadakadai, Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar District. …… Petitioner Vs State rep. by the Sub Inspector of Police, Mathur, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-164347","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAnbarasan vs State Rep. By The on 9 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anbarasan-vs-state-rep-by-the-on-9-april-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Anbarasan vs State Rep. By The on 9 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anbarasan-vs-state-rep-by-the-on-9-april-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-04-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-06-22T02:09:28+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anbarasan-vs-state-rep-by-the-on-9-april-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anbarasan-vs-state-rep-by-the-on-9-april-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Anbarasan vs State Rep. By The on 9 April, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-04-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-22T02:09:28+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anbarasan-vs-state-rep-by-the-on-9-april-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2058,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anbarasan-vs-state-rep-by-the-on-9-april-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anbarasan-vs-state-rep-by-the-on-9-april-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anbarasan-vs-state-rep-by-the-on-9-april-2008\",\"name\":\"Anbarasan vs State Rep. By The on 9 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-04-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-22T02:09:28+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anbarasan-vs-state-rep-by-the-on-9-april-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anbarasan-vs-state-rep-by-the-on-9-april-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anbarasan-vs-state-rep-by-the-on-9-april-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Anbarasan vs State Rep. By The on 9 April, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Anbarasan vs State Rep. By The on 9 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anbarasan-vs-state-rep-by-the-on-9-april-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Anbarasan vs State Rep. By The on 9 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anbarasan-vs-state-rep-by-the-on-9-april-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-04-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-06-22T02:09:28+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anbarasan-vs-state-rep-by-the-on-9-april-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anbarasan-vs-state-rep-by-the-on-9-april-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Anbarasan vs State Rep. By The on 9 April, 2008","datePublished":"2008-04-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-22T02:09:28+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anbarasan-vs-state-rep-by-the-on-9-april-2008"},"wordCount":2058,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anbarasan-vs-state-rep-by-the-on-9-april-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anbarasan-vs-state-rep-by-the-on-9-april-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anbarasan-vs-state-rep-by-the-on-9-april-2008","name":"Anbarasan vs State Rep. By The on 9 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-04-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-22T02:09:28+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anbarasan-vs-state-rep-by-the-on-9-april-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anbarasan-vs-state-rep-by-the-on-9-april-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anbarasan-vs-state-rep-by-the-on-9-april-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Anbarasan vs State Rep. By The on 9 April, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/164347","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=164347"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/164347\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=164347"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=164347"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=164347"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}