Gopalakrishnan v. State Rep.By
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Twenty Fifth day of August Two Thousand Twenty One PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice M.DHANDAPANI CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.15179 of 2021 1 GOPALAKRISHNAN [ PETITIONERS / ACCUSED ] 2 NARAYANASAMY 3 VENGATESAN 4 SATHISHKUMAR 5 SANGEETHAKUMAR 6 NALLAMMAL 7 ARULPANDI 8 MARUDHUPANDI Vs STATE REP.BY [ RESPONDENT ] INSPECTOR OF POLICE, RAMANATHAM POLICE STATION, CUDDALORE DISTRICT.
CR.NO.137/2021.
For Petitioner : M/S. PERIASWAMY I. Advocate For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners, who apprehend arrest for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 447, 427 and 506(ii) of IPC in Crime No.137 of 2021 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant has fence his agriculture property to prevent the wild animals entered into land and destroyed the crops. On account of which, the petitioners said to have removed the fencing and threatened the defacto complainant with dire consequences. Thereby, the defacto complainant had sustained injuries. Hence, the complaint.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the defacto complainant had wontedly fenced the common passage which was used by the petitioners to go to their agriculture land, the same was questioned by them, the defacto complainant has given a false complaint against the petitioners. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submits that in this regard, no one sustained injury. However, he vehemently opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to these petitioners. 5.Considering the fact that no one sustained injury, this court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to these petitioners. 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 of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tittakudi on condition that each of the petitioners shall execute a separate bonds for a sum of Rs.
(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]; and;
(f) if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229-A IPC.
-sd/- 25/08/2021 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 JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, TITTAKUDI 2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE CUDDALORE(FOR INFORMATION) 3 INSPECTOR OF POLICE, RAMANATHAM POLICE STATION, CUDDALORE DISTRICT.
4 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.
CC to M/S. PERIASWAMY I. Advocate on payment of necessary charges Sr.9207 CRL OP.15179/2021 Date :25/08/2021 RVR 07/09/2021