ORDER Arrest of the petitioner- a saintly person, that too, on the day of Deepavali, would have definitely triggered the passion in the mind of millions of Indians. From then onwards, religious sentiments, faith and the reverence in which the petitioner is held, would be ruling in such minds. Emotional response would be running through their blood stream. Therefore, there cannot be any doubt that emotional response and reaction alone would be instantly guiding them to evaluate a situation like this. The Judge, a human being, who presides over a court, is also vulnerable to such immediate emotional responses. But the Judge must come out of such a situation and deal with the issue before him in a dispassionate manner as otherwise, the decision making process may not be on the right cpath. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment reported in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab,1980 S.C.C.(Crl.) 465 had laid down what should be the approach of the court in such circumstances and it is as hereunder: "Judges have to decide cases as they come before them, mindful of the need to keep passions and prejudices out of their decisions." Therefore keeping passions out of my mind and keeping myself at a safe distance from the impact of religious sentiments and faith which I have, I have decided to appreciate the issue in this application strictly on legal materials. 2. There is a long line of decisions starting from the one reported in Public Prosecutor v. Sanyasayya,A.I.R. 1925 Mad.1224 as to what should be the approach of the court while considering the bail application. In the above referred to judgment, a Division Bench of this Court held as follows: "The court is not called upon to conduct a preliminary trial of the case and consider the probability of the accused’s guilt or innocence. It would be entirely exceeding its function, if it did that in any detail." In Niranjan Singh v. Prabhakar, A.I.R. 1980 S.C.785, while considering the bail petition, the court held as follows: "Detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case should be avoided while passing orders on bail applications. No party should have the impression that his case has been prejudiced. No party should have the impression that his case has been prejudiced. To be satisfied about a prima facie case is needed but it is not the same as an exhaustive exploration of the merits in the order itself." This principle is again reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case reported in Puran v. Rambilas and another, (2001)6 S.C.C. 338 and it is as follows: "Giving reasons is different from discussing merits or demerits. At the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case has not to be undertaken." This was quoted with approval again by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment reported in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav and another, 2004(3) Scale 257 . There was an earlier judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case reported in Niranjan Singh v. Prabhakar, A.I.R. 1980 S.C.785, wherein detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case while passing orders on bail application was deprecated. In Puran’s case referred to supra, the above referred to dictum of the Supreme Court was quoted with approval. The law on grant of bail has alse been repeatedly laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. In Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, 1980 S.C.C. (Crl.) 465, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held as hereunder: "The question whether to grant bail or not depends for its answer upon a variety of circumstances, the cumulative effect of which must enter into the judicial verdict. Any one single circumstance cannot be treated as of universal validity or as necessarily justifying the grant or refusal of bail." In that case the court went on to hold as follows: "The principle to be deduced from the various sections in the Criminal Procedure Code was that grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception. An accused person who enjoys freedom is in a much better position to look after his case and to properly defend himself than if he were is custody. As a presumably innocent person he is therefore entitled to freedom and every opportunity to look after his own case. An accused person who enjoys freedom is in a much better position to look after his case and to properly defend himself than if he were is custody. As a presumably innocent person he is therefore entitled to freedom and every opportunity to look after his own case. A presumably innocent person must have his freedom to enable him to establish his innocence." It referred to the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case reported in Nagendra v. King Emperor, A.I.R. 1924 Cal.476, where it was held that "it is indisputable that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment". In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav and another, 2004(3) Scale 257 , referred to, it was held as follows: "It is also necessary for the Court granting bail to consider among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail; they are (a) the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence; (b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant; (c) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of thecharge." In State of Maharashtra v. Ramesh Taurani, (1998)1 S.C.C.41, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held as follows: "It is trite that among other considerations which the court has to take into account in deciding whether bail should be granted in a non-bailable offence is the nature and gravity of the offence." In that case the Supreme Court was considering the grant of bail at a stage when the investigation was continuing. These are the broad principles on which the request for bail has to be considered. 3. Heard Shri Ram Jeth Malani learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri.K.T.S.Tulsi learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would primarily put forward the following points as grounds for releasing the petitioner on bail forthwith: (a) At the time when the petitioner was taken into custody at Mehboob Nagar, the grounds of arrest were not furnished to him and this violates Art.22(1) of the Constitution of India. This also violates Sec.50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The deprivation of personal liberty of the petitioner is not in accordance with the procedure established by law and therefore it violates Art.21 of the Constitution of India. This also violates Sec.50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The deprivation of personal liberty of the petitioner is not in accordance with the procedure established by law and therefore it violates Art.21 of the Constitution of India. (b)The petitioner was neither offered legal help nor provided with a lawyer. This also violates Art.22(1) of the Constitution of India. Such a legal help was denied to him even when he was produced before the court at Kancheepuram for remand. (c) The arrest and remand of the petitioner are on non-existing grounds. In other words, there is no legal material even at this stage to connect the petitioner with the crime and therefore the arrest ought not to have been made and the Magistrate before whom the petitioner was produced for remand after arrest ought not to have remanded him. The materials relied upon by the Investigating Agency namely, (i) they are in possession of materials that, both prior to and after the occurrence, there were completed calls on mobile phones between the petitioner’s end and the other end namely, the accused’s end; (ii) money was withdrawn from a bank account namely ICICI, Kancheepuram, maintained by the mutt and disbursed to the hirelings; and (iii) a letter stated to have been written by the deceased in this case to the petitioner came to be recovered from one of the arrested accused, do not get support in the records available with the investigating Agency. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that if there are any materials available with the Investigating Ageny in support of the above, they must disclose it before this Court, which they have not done in the counter affidavit. Therefore it must be presumed that the Investigating Agency has no legal evidence with them connecting the petitioner with the crime. 4.Countering these arguments, Mr.K.T.S.Tulsi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State would submit that the State is not bound to give specific details of the materials collected by them during investigation against the petitioner and it is not expected of it. Such a situation would arise only at the time when the final report is filed and not earlier. 4.Countering these arguments, Mr.K.T.S.Tulsi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State would submit that the State is not bound to give specific details of the materials collected by them during investigation against the petitioner and it is not expected of it. Such a situation would arise only at the time when the final report is filed and not earlier. If the petitioner is to be given graphic details of the materials collected during investigation, then the very object of the investigation would be totally lost and truth would get buried deeper and deeper, which the Investigating Agency may find it difficult to retrieve. The learned Senior Counsel for the State would deny that there is any violation of any Constitutional mandate or violation of Sec.50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to him, the grounds of arrest were informed to the petitioner at Mehboob itself and the petitioner was never denied his right to consult his lawyer at any stage namely, either at the time of his arrest or at the time of producing him before the remand court. The learned Senior Counsel would also submit that the sequence of events starting from the arrest of the petitioner at Mehboob Nagar is videographed and it is available with them in the court hall itself, which cuts the case of the petitioner on the violation of the constitutional mandates to the ground and that the State is prepared to play the compact disc in the television available with them in the court hall immediately. I asked Mr.Ram Jeth Malani learned Senior Counsel as to whether he is still maintaining the ground that there is violation of constitutional mandates as referred to above and violation of Sec.50 of the Code and if he is of the opinion that the challenge can be withdrawn, then the compact disc need not be played in court. The learned Senior Counsel emphatically responded saying that every statement made by Mr.K.T.S.Tulsi learned Senior Counsel for the State in this regard is denied. 5. I applied my mind to the materials on record. The prosecution relies upon, at this stage, three materials stated to have been collected by them namely, completed calls on mobile phones between the petitioner on the one hand and one or other hirelings on the other hand, both prior to the occurrence and after the occurrence. 5. I applied my mind to the materials on record. The prosecution relies upon, at this stage, three materials stated to have been collected by them namely, completed calls on mobile phones between the petitioner on the one hand and one or other hirelings on the other hand, both prior to the occurrence and after the occurrence. They also rely upon the act of the petitioner withdrawing money from an account maintained by the mutt in a bank for the purpose of disbursing the same to the hirelings and substantial money having come to be recovered from such hirelings. Lastly, the State relies upon the recovery of a letter stated to have been written by the deceased to the petitioner giving him an ultimatum from one of the arrested accused. As already stated, Mr.Ram Jeth Malani, learned Senior Counsel contended that these materials are not available at all. It must be noticed that the petitioner is implicated in this case as a conspirator in a case of murder. It is not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner personally took part in the brutal attack on the victim. But on the other hand, their case is that the petitioner is at the head of the conspiracy to kill this victim and he continued his role as the conspirator till the object was accomplished. There is assertion in this regard by the State in their affidavit filed by the Chief Investigating Officer and counter assertion on behalf of the petitioner in the various affidavits filed. In addition to the above materials, the State also relies upon a strong motive for the petitioner to act detrimental to the interest of the deceased in this case. It cannot be disputed that if the materials relied upon by the State is true they constitute prima facie materials against the petitioner. Therefore with a view to find out whether the materials relied upon by the prosecution is available with them, I called for the case diary and perused it. On a perusal of the case diary, I find that there are prima facie materials in the form of statements of various persons implicating the petitioner as the conspirator and money received from him for the purpose of completing the object. On a perusal of the case diary, I find that there are prima facie materials in the form of statements of various persons implicating the petitioner as the conspirator and money received from him for the purpose of completing the object. It is also a well settled position that at this stage the court, considering the application for bail, cannot analyse the materials so collected by the prosecution as to whether it would be sufficient for getting a conviction for the petitioner in the trial. If I do so, then I would be evaluating the evidence, which is impermissible at this stage. Therefore I do not want to say anything more at this stage, except saying that in the case diary there are prima facie materials against the petitioner as contended by the State. That is what the Supreme Court also had said in the judgments referred to earlier namely, the court should not embark upon a detailed enquiry into the merits or demerits of the respective case at the stage of considering the bail application. What all the petitioner is trying to contend is that, he is innocent and that the case has been foisted upon him. Shri.K.T.S.Tulsi, is right in his submission that State is not bound to give all the details, which they have collected, to the petitioner even at this stage. 6. Coming to the question whether there is any violation of Constitutional mandates under Art.22(1) of the Constitution of India and Sec.50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, I find the answer against the petitioner. The compact disc was played in open court in a television brought by the Investigating Agency. Screening went on for about ten minutes and thereafter, at the direction of the court, the screening was stopped. This court is informed that it is likely to go on for some more time. During the short span of ten minutes itself, I could see and hear that the grounds of arrest had been told to the petitioner by the arresting officer. This complies with the requirement of Art.22(1) of the Constitution of India and Sec.50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The conversation between the petitioner and the arresting officer videographed in the compact disc shows that when the petitioner wanted to have his lawyer, the arresting officer had told him that he can have his lawyer. This complies with the requirement of Art.22(1) of the Constitution of India and Sec.50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The conversation between the petitioner and the arresting officer videographed in the compact disc shows that when the petitioner wanted to have his lawyer, the arresting officer had told him that he can have his lawyer. It is not as though the petitioner cannot engage a lawyer of his choice. Law does not require a police officer arresting a person to take a lawyer with himself and provide him to the arrested person. In case if a person cannot engage a lawyer of his choice, then the State is bound to provide a lawyer and that is not the case here. It is not the case of the petitioner that at the time of his arrest in Mehboob Nagar, he was prevented from engaging a lawyer of his choice. As far as the availability of a lawyer to the petitoiner at the time of his remand is concerned, the affidavit sworn to by Mr.Y.Thiagarajan, a learned Member of the Bar at Kancheepuram, itself shows that he was inside the Chamber of the learned Magistrate at the time when remand was made and he had also raised his objections regarding remand. However, he would add that the Magistrate was not inclined to hear him before passing the order of remand but only heard him after passing the order or remand. I see no reason to accept this statement made by the learned advocate in his affidavit. Nothing is said against the Magistrate as to why he must act against the interest of the petitioner. I sent for the remand records and perused it. It shows that even at the time of remand, the Magistrate had explained to him why he was arrested and his intended remand. Therefore I hold that there is no violation of the Constitutional mandate or even violation of Sec.50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 7. It is next contended by the learned sernior counsel for the petitioner that the remand proceedings had taken place admittedly in the Chambers of the learned Magistrate and therefore it would not amount to conducting a judicial proceeding in open court hall as contemplated under Sec.327 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 7. It is next contended by the learned sernior counsel for the petitioner that the remand proceedings had taken place admittedly in the Chambers of the learned Magistrate and therefore it would not amount to conducting a judicial proceeding in open court hall as contemplated under Sec.327 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The State is not disputing the fact that the Magistrate exercised his remand power sitting in his Chambers attached to the court hall. The State explains that the petitioner is a high profile person; they were expecting a law and order problem at the time of production of the petitioner before the remand court and therefore they have chosen a time when the whole city would be sleeping. It is also stated by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that merely because restrictions were there for the movement of the persons in the vicinity of the court building, it would not necessarily mean that the remand proceedings did not take place in the open Court hall. As already stated, the presence of lawyers in the Chambers of the learned Magistrate (atleast definitely one lawyer for the petitioner was present) would definitely indicate that the remand proceedings did take place in open court hall. For all the reasons stated above, I am not inclined to go into the arguments advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that if really the State is genuine in their case against the petitioner, then nothing prevented them from conducting a test identification parade in respect of the arrested accused, since admittedly there are three eye witnesses to the occurrence. As rightly contended by Mr.K.T.S.Tulsi learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State, it is not for the Court at any stage to interfere with the investigating powers of the Investigating Agency. Therefore, what they should do and they should not do is outside the purview of the court’s power. It is for the police to decide as to whether a test identification parade is necessary or not and they only stand to gain or lose on such decision. Investigation is at the threshold stage. The offence complained is of a serious nature. Mr.K.T.S.Tulsi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State would submit that much more remains to be done in the investigation after the arrest of the petitioner. 8. Investigation is at the threshold stage. The offence complained is of a serious nature. Mr.K.T.S.Tulsi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State would submit that much more remains to be done in the investigation after the arrest of the petitioner. 8. In the light of my discussion as referred to above, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has not made out any case for releasing him on bail at this stae. Accordingly this petition is dismissed. The connected miscellaneous petitions filed by various interveners are also dismissed without going into the question as to whether they are entitled to be heard or not.