Pandi, v. The Inspector Of Police,
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Second day of February Two Thousand Eighteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice R.PONGIAPPAN CRL OP(MD) No.1666 of 2018 1 PANDI, 2 MUTHULAKSHMI, 3 DHAMODHARAN, ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 to 3 Vs STATE THROUGH THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SAMAYANALLUR POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT.
(CRIME NO.27/2018) ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioners : M/S.M.SUBASH BABU Advocate For Respondent : MR.A.ROBINSON, Govt. 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, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 336 of I.P.C., and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, in Crime No.27 of 2018, seek anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners and the defacto complainant are neighbours, due to the dispute regarding the pathway, the petitioners assaulted the defacto complainant, caused injuries and abused him by 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 by 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. He further submitted that the investigation is in progress.
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 the family dispute, the petitioners assaulted the defacto complainant. Admittedly, the first petitioner is the brother of the defacto complainant and the person, who sustained injury at the time of alleged occurrence was discharged from the hospital after completing treatment. Accordingly, considering the nature of offence committed by the petitioners, custodial interrogation of the petitioners may not be necessary for completing the investigation. Hence, 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 No.IV, Madurai, 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/- 02/02/2018 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE IV, MADURAI 2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE MADURAI 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SAMAYANALLUR POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT.
4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI +1. CC to M/S.M.SUBASH BABU Advocate SR.No.1874
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.1666 of 2018 Date :02/02/2018 SMA/RR-CSL/SAR-4/12.02.2018:3P/6c