Kabilarasu v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Twenty Fourth day of January Two Thousand Eighteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice R.PONGIAPPAN CRL OP(MD) No.1089 of 2018 1 KABILARASU 2 NAVANITHAKRISHNAN 3 KANNAN 4 BALAMURUGAN 5 SATHIYARAJ ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED No.1 to 5 Vs STATE REP.BY, THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NAINARKOVIL POLICE STATION, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT.
CRIME NO.10/2018 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioners : M/S.R.MURALI Advocate For Respondent : M/S.A.ROBINSON, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners/A.1 to A.5, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 147, 341, 294(b), 323 and 506(ii) I.P.C., and Section 4 of Women Harassment Act, in Crime No.10 of 2018 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners and the defacto complainant are neighbours, due to previous enmity, the petitioners assaulted the defacto complainant, caused injuries and abused her using filthy language. Hence, the case has been registered for the above said offences.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they are no way connected with the offence, as alleged in the prosecution and prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
4.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted that the injured has already been discharged from the hospital and further submitted that the investigation is still pending.
5. The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side are considered. It is alleged that during the time of occurrence, due to previous enmity, the petitioners assaulted the defacto complainant. Admittedly, the person, who sustained injury at the time of alleged occurrence was discharged from the hospital after completing treatment. Accordingly, custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not necessary for completing the investigation. Therefore, considering the above facts and circumstances, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, with certain conditions.
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, Paramakudi, on condition that each of the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.
(i)the petitioners shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.00 a.m., for a period of three weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation;
(ii)the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial; (iii)the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;
(iv) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioners shall stand automatically cancelled and 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 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]. sd/- 24/01/2018 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, PARAMAKUDI 2 THE CHIEF JUDCIAL MAGISTRATE, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT.
3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NAINARKOVIL POLICE STATION, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT 4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
+1. CC to M/S.R.MURALI Advocate SR.No.1306
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.1089 of 2018 Date :24/01/2018 PK/RR/SAR-1/31.01.2018 : 3P/6C