C. Rajamani, M/65, v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Twenty Fourth day of June Two Thousand Fifteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice K.KALYANASUNDARAM CRL OP(MD) No.11522 of 2015 1 C. RAJAMANI, 2 R. ELANCHEZHIAN ... PETITIONERS / ACCUSED 1 2 Vs STATE REP BY:: THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE THENTHAMARAIKULAM POLICE STATION, KANYAKUMARAI DISTRICT. CRIME NO.260 OF 2015.

... RESPONDENT(S) / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.G.ASHOK KUMAR Advocate For Respondent : MR P KANNITHEVAN Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners/A1 and A2 apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 447, 294(b), 307, 427 and 506(ii) of I.P.C. in Crime No.260 of 2015 and hence, seek anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that on 20.06.2015 during night hours the accused threw a petrol bomb in the house of the defacto complainant which caused loss of property worth about Rs.25,000/-.

3.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are respectable persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the respondent police. It is further submitted that even as per the de-facto complainant, the third accused only thrown the petrol bomb in the house of the defacto complainant at the instigation of these petitioners. It is also submitted that these petitioners are practising Advocates in High Court, Chennai and they have been falsely implicated due to civil dispute.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) opposed the bail petition stating that the de-facto complainant has suffered loss of property to the tune of Rs.25,000/-. He further submitted that no one injured in the occurrence and the petitioners have no bad antecedents.

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

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 nature of allegations made against the petitioners in FIR, 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 No.III, Nagercoil, and on each of them executing a 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 learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the petitioners shall appear before respondent as and when required for interrogation. 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/- 24/06/2015 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO III NAGERCOIL 2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KANYAKUMARI AT NAGERCOIL 3 THE ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI 4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE THENTHAMARAIKULAM POLICE STATION, KANYAKUMARAI DISTRICT. CRIME NO.260 OF 2015.

+1. CC to M/S.G.ASHOK KUMAR Advocate SR.No.33471 DM 24 JUNE 15 2p 6c

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.11522 of 2015 Date :24/06/2015 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/