Rasappan v. The State Rep By Its,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 29.06.2020

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.O.P.No.9521 of 2020

1. Rasappan

2. Vimal Raj

3. Jaisankar ... Petitioners Vs.

State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Nanila Police Station, Tirvarur District.

Cr. No.1159 of 2020 ... Respondent Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.1159 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioners : Mr. T. Muruganantham For Respondent : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz, Additional Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

The petitioners who apprehends apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 352 and 506(i) of IPC in Crime No.1159 of 2020 seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners and the defacto complainant are neighbours and there was a wordy quarrel between them and it is alleged that the petitioners abused the defacto complainant with unparliamentary words. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and there was only a wordy quarrel between the defacto complainant and the petitioners. The petitioners did not assault the defacto complainant or any other person and there was no previous case pending against the petitioners. Therefore, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that there was a wordy quarrel between the defacto complainant and the petitioners. Further the petitioners abused the defacto complainant with unparliamentary words and threatened him. Hence he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. Considering the above fact and circumstances of the case and the fact that there was only a wordy quarrel between the petitioners and the defacto complainant and there was no previous case pending against the petitioners, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions.

6. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Nanillam on condition that each of the petitioners shall execute a separate bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten 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 learned Magistrate concerned, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that: [a] the petitioners and the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity.

[b] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. for a period of two weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation.

[c] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

[d] the petitioners 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 petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners 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].

[f] If the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.

-sd/- 29/06/2020 This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned TRUE COPY Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104.

TO 1 THE DISTRICT MUNSIF CUM JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, NANILLAM.

2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NANILA POLICE STATION, TIRUVARUR DISTRICT CC to M/S.T.MURUGANANTHAM Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.9521/2020 Date :29/06/2020 cs 24/07/2020