A. Meena v. The Sub Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Twenty Fourth day of July Two Thousand Fifteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice K.KALYANASUNDARAM CRL OP(MD) No.12312 of 2015 1 A. MEENA 2 KAMALA 3 MAYILA ALIAS MUTHIAH 4 SASIKUMAR ... PETITIONER / ACCUSED RANK NOT KNOWN Vs THE STATE REP.BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KADUPATTY POLICE STATION, VADIPATTY TK, MADURAI DT, CRIME NO.93/2015 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.RAMASAMY 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, who are arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 4, apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 324, 506(ii), 327 (NP) I.P.C., in Crime No.93 of 2015 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail.

2. According to the prosecution, the accused have demolished the compound wall of the de-facto complainant and caused damage and also stolen the cell phone of the de-facto complainant.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the de-facto complainant is the cousin brother of the third petitioner and he is having property on the backyard of the house owned by the third petitioner. The petitioners 1, 3 and 4 are residing at Coimbatore and the second petitioner is residing in the house of third petitioner and on 28.06.2015, the de-facto complainant has demolished the compound wall of the third petitioner and for which, a complaint was given by the second petitioner to the respondent police on 28.06.2015 and the third petitioner also filed caveat petition before the District Munsif Court, Vadipatti which is registered as C.P.No.44 of 2015. It is further submitted that due to the dispute, a false complaint was given implicating the petitioners in this case.

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

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) submitted that the cell phone of the de-facto complainant could not recovered so far and the injured has been discharged from the hospital.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, 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 their arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti, Madurai District and on their executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the petitioners 1 and 2 shall appear before the respondent police as and when required and the petitioners 3 and 4 shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10.00 a.m. for a period of one week and thereafter as and when required. The petitioners shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously.

6. 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/- 24/07/2015 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1.THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, VADIPATTAI, MADURAI DISTRICT.

2.THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE MADURAI.

3.THE ADDL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

4.THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KADUPATTY POLICE STATION, VADIPATTY TK, MADURAI DISTRICT.

+1. CC to M/S.RAMASAMY Advocate SR.No.42153

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.12312 of 2015 Date :24/07/2015 RG.29.07.2015 2P.6C.

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