JUDGMENT : N. Anand Venkatesh, J. 1. The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences under Sections 498-A, 323 and 506(ii) of IPC in Crime No. 7 of 2018 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail. 2. The petitioner is the uncle of A1. It is the case of the prosecution that the husband of the de-facto complainant had committed cruelty against his wife and he has also married another lady who has been arrayed as A2, even while the first marriage is in force. 3. The learned counsel for the intervenor submitted that this petitioner was responsible for the husband to marry A2 again even while the first marriage was in force and therefore, he vehemently opposed this anticipatory bail petition. 4. This Court in its judgment in State Vs. Nakkeeran Gopal, reported in 2019 (1) LW Crl.26: 2019 (1) CTC 497 , after considering the entire law on arrest and remand, gave detailed guidelines to be followed by the Police as well as the Magistrates, during arrest and remand of an accused person. One important area that has been dealt with, is the scope of Sec. 41-A Crl.P.C, which deals with cases where the Police Officer decides not to arrest the accused. This Court had directed the DGP, Chennai to notify the Form/Notice to be issued to the accused persons, in line with the guidelines issued by the Delhi High Court in Amandeep Singh Johar Vs. State of NCT Delhi and Another. The Form/Notice has now been notified and it has already come into effect. This Court therefore deems it necessary to inculcate the culture of putting to use the procedure u/S 41-A of Crl.P.C., to the Police in all cases where the offences carry a punishment of up to seven years or below. 5. The Police must be made to understand that all Criminal Cases need not necessarily involve arrest of accused persons during investigation and an effective investigation can be done even otherwise. A change in attitude will bring down unnecessary filing of Anticipatory Bail Petitions. This procedure can be effectively implemented in matrimonial disputes, commercial disputes, property disputes and other minor offences, to name a few. Ultimately the aim is to stop unnecessary/hasty/illegal arrests. A change in attitude will bring down unnecessary filing of Anticipatory Bail Petitions. This procedure can be effectively implemented in matrimonial disputes, commercial disputes, property disputes and other minor offences, to name a few. Ultimately the aim is to stop unnecessary/hasty/illegal arrests. These arrests normally takes place on a Friday or a day prior to holidays to ensure that the accused does not come out on bail immediately. The popular Euphemism used is "Friday arrests". The Tamil Nadu Police need to pull their socks up and need to show more quality and maturity in investigation techniques. 6. Henceforth in all Anticipatory Bail Petitions filed before this Court, and where the offence concerned carries a punishment of up to seven years or below, the Police shall instruct the Public Prosecutor in what all cases they are going to resort to the procedure under Section 41-A of Crl.P.C. In all those cases, this Court will record the same and pass necessary orders. In all other cases where the Police wants to arrest the accused persons, in the course of investigation, those Anticipatory Bail Petitions will be dealt with by this Court on merits. 7. It is not necessary that the Police must take a decision about resorting to the procedure under Section 41-A only when a Anticipatory Bail Petition is filed. They can independently take a decision regarding the same in accordance with Guidelines (V) (c), (f), (g) and (h), provided by this Court in State Vs. Nakkeeran, referred supra. This process shall, to start with, be implemented before this Court and once it settles down and becomes part of the procedure during investigation, it can be implemented before the Sessions Courts where, Anticipatory Bail Petitions are filed. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions. 9. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, on condition that each of the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs. 9. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, on condition that each of the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the said Magistrate, on further condition that: a. if the petitioner fail to surrender before the said Magistrate within a period of fifteen days, this order shall stand automatically cancelled. b. the petitioner shall report before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation; c. the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial; d. the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial; e. on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K. Shaji Vs. State of Kerala, (2005) AIR SCW 5560; and; f. if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229-A IPC.