Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/10818/2015ordered

S.P.N.Sethupathy@Sethu v. The Inspector Of Police

2015-06-16Honourable Mr Justice K. Kalyanasundaram2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Sixteenth day of June Two Thousand Fifteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice K.KALYANASUNDARAM CRL OP(MD) No.10818 of 2015 1 S.P.N.SETHUPATHY @ SETHU 2 N.JEGANTHAN 3 N.AYOTTHI ..PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 to 3 Vs.

STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE OTHAKADAI POLICE STATION, MADURAI DIST.

(CR.NO. 314 OF 2015) ..RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.S.RAVI Advocate For Respondent : Mr.K.V.RAJARAJAN, Government Advocate(Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners/A1 to A3 apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 294 (b), 323 and 379(N.P.) IPC in Crime No.314 of 2015 and hence, seek anticipatory bail.

2.The prosecution case is that subsequent to the wordy quarrel with regard to the land dispute, the accused abused the defacto complainant and also taken away 2 1⁄2 sovereigns of gold jewels. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners and the defacto complainant are neighbours and with regard to pathway dispute, a false complaint was given against the petitioners. It is further submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the respondent police.

4. The learned Government Advocate submitted that due to land dispute, the petitioners attacked the defacto complainant and also taken way 2 1⁄2 sovereigns of gold jewels. It is further submitted that the petitioners have no bad antecedents.

5.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the State and also perused the entire materials available on record.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Melur, Madurai District, and on each of them executing 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 to the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the petitioners shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10.00 a.m for a period of two weeks and thereafter, as https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

and when required. The petitioners shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Scrupulously.

7. The petitioners shall appear before the concerned Magistrate within a period of 15 days from the date on which the order copy made ready failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail stands dismissed. sd/- 16/06/2015 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MELUR, MADURAI DISTRICT. 2 -do-thro'THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MADURAI. 3 THE ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT,MADURAI. 4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, OTHAKADAI POLICE STATION, MADURAI DIST. +1. CC to M/S.S.RAVI Advocate SR.No.31030 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.10818 of 2015 Date :16/06/2015 PBK/AMF 17/06/2015 ::2P-6C::

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/