Murugan, S/O.Krishnan, v. The Inspector Of Police,
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Twenty Third day of February Two Thousand Eighteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice R.PONGIAPPAN CRL OP(MD) No.2549 of 2018 MURUGAN, ... PETITIONER / ACCUSED NO.2 Vs THE STATE REP.BY ITS, THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PARAMAKUDI TALUK POLICE STATION, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT CR.NO.22 OF 2018 ... RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.M.S.JEYAKARTHIK Advocate For Respondent : MR.K.SUYAMBULINGA BHARATHI, Government Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner/A2, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(ii) of IPC., in Crime No.22 of 2018, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that due to the family dispute, on 10.02.2018, the petitioner assaulted the defacto complainant by using iron rod and caused injuries. Thereafter, the petitioner abused the defacto complainant by using filthy language and threatened him with dire consequences. Hence, the case has been registered for the above said incident.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he prayed for anticipatory bail for the petitioner.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondent on instructions, would submit that the injured has been discharged from the hospital. According to the prosecution, the investigation is in progress.
5. The submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for either side are considered. According to the prosecution, the person, who sustained injury during the time of occurrence was discharged from the hospital after completing treatment. Further except the offence under Section 506(ii) of IPC., all other petition mentioned offences are bailable in nature. Hence, custodial interrogation may not be necessary for completing the investigation. Therefore, considering the above facts and circumstances, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.
Accordingly, the petitioner 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 on which the order copy is made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.
(i) the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of three weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation; (ii) 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 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/- 23/02/2018 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
PJL
TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, PARAMAKUDI 2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT. 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PARAMAKUDI TALUK POLICE STATION, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT.
4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
+1. CC to M/S.M.S.JEYAKARTHIK Advocate SR.No.3015 GJM/CM/VR/SAR-3-27.2.18-3P-6C
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.2549 of 2018 Date :23/02/2018