Chandra v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Sixth day of July Two Thousand Fifteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice K.KALYANASUNDARAM CRL OP(MD) No.12479 of 2015 CHANDRA ... PETITIONER(S) / ACCUSED 9 Vs STATE REP BY::THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE VEERAPANDI POLICE STATION, THENI DT.
(CRIME NO.358 OF 2015) ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.S.SIVA ILAYARAJA Advocate For Respondent : M/s.S.PRABHA, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner, who is arrayed as the nineth accused, in Crime No.358 of 2015 on the file of the respondent police apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 147, 142, 341, 342, 109, 302 and 506(ii) IPC and hence, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.According to the defacto complainant, his father Manthiri was stabbed by the first accused on 30.06.2015 while the other accused instigated him for commission of offence. 3.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the deceased is none other than the paternal uncle of the first accused and the first accused was working as Police Constable from 2002 and on the complaints given by the deceased, A1 lost his job. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner is working as a Salesman in a ration shop at Ambasamudram and due to the previous enmity between the father and the deceased, She was unnecessarily roped into the case.
4.The learned counsel further submitted that the defacto complainant is an eye witness to the occurrence and even as per his statement, the petitioner along with other accused have caught hold of the witness and the wife of the deceased, while the first accused caused injuries on the deceased with knife.
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
5.The learned Government Advocate(Crl.side) appearing for the State submitted that the first accused is having five previous cases and the first and tenth accused were already arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 30.06.2015. She would further submit that as per the defacto complainant the petitioner who is arrayed as A9 caught hold of the defato complainant and the wife of the deceased.
6. Considering the overt act attributed against this petitioner, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Theni, and on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum to the satisfaction to the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the petitioner shall appear before the respondent police daily at 6.00 p.m until further orders. The petitioner shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Scrupulously.
7. The petitioner 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/- 06/07/2015 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE THENI 2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THENI 3 THE ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI 4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE VEERAPANDI POLICE STATION, THENI DT.
1. CC to M/S.S.SIVA ILAYARAJA Advocate SR.No.36283 DM 7 7 15 2p 6c ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.12479 of 2015 Date :06/07/2015 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/