Ramar @ Ramachandran, v. The Inspector Of Police,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Sixteenth day of February Two Thousand Eighteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice R.PONGIAPPAN CRL OP(MD) No.2516 of 2018 RAMAR @ RAMACHANDRAN, ... PETITIONER/SOLE ACCUSED Vs THE STATE REP.BY, THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SAYALKUDI POLICE STATION, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT.

(CRIME NO.18 OF 2018) ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.R.MANOHARAN Advocate For Respondent : MR.A.ROBINSON, Government Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner/Sole Accused, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent Police for the offence punishable under Sections 294(b), 332 and 506(i) I.P.C., in Crime No.18 of 2018, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 28.01.2018, the defacto complainant, who is the Head Constable at the respondent police and his police officials conducted the raid at Aruppukkottai Road, at that time, the petitioner intercepted the defacto complainant, abused him by using filthy language. Hence, a case has been registered for the above said offence. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person, he has been falsely implicated, further added that he has not committed any offence as alleged, and pleads for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4.The learned Government Advocate(Criminal Side) appearing for the State submitted that 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, the defacto complainant and the Inspector of Police made a raid for identifying the liquor sale, at that time, the petitioner herein intercepted the defacto complainant, abused him by using filthy language, for which, this case has been registered. Now, considering the nature of offence committed by the petitioner, custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be necessary for completing the investigation. However, on whole reading of the First Information Report shows that the petitioner has prevented the defacto complainant from doing their duty. So, this Court decided to impose some stringent condition to the petitioner.

Accordingly, he is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Mudukulathur, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.

(i) the petitioner shall sign before the Dindigul North Police Station, Dindigul District daily at 10.00 a.m until further orders.

(i) the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial. (iii)the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

(iv)On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner shall stand automatically cancelled and the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned 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/- 16/02/2018 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

msa TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MUDUKULATHUR 2 DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SAYALKUDI POLICE STATION, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT. 4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

+1. CC to M/S.R.MANOHARAN Advocate SR.No.2653 GJM/RR/SAR-3-21.2.18-3P-6C

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.2516 of 2018 Date :16/02/2018