Sekar v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Twenty Second day of February Two Thousand Eighteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice R.PONGIAPPAN CRL OP(MD) No.2610 of 2018 1 SEKAR 2 ARUN @ ARUN PANDIAN ... PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED NO.1 & 2 Vs STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KULITHALAI POLICE STATION, KARUR DISTRICT.

IN CRIME NO.28/2018 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioners: M/S.V.KANNAN, Advocate For Respondent : M/S.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 & A2, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent Police for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324 & 506(ii) IPC in Crime No.28 of 2018, seek anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that due to temple dispute, the petitioners assaulted the de facto complainant by using wooden log and stone and thereby, caused injuries to him. Hence, the present case has been registered.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and they are no way connected with the offences, and pleads for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) submitted that injured has already been discharged from the hospital. According to him investigation is still pending.

5.The submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on either side are considered. It is alleged that during the time of occurrence, due to temple dispute, the petitioners assaulted the de facto complainant by using wooden log and stone and thereby, caused injuries to him. As per the submissions of the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) the person, who sustained injuries at the time of occurrence, was discharged from the hospital, after completing treatment. Apart from that, except Section 506 (ii) IPC, the other https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

offences mentioned in the petition are bailable in nature. Accordingly, custodial interrogation may not be necessary for completing the investigation.

7.Taking the above said aspects into consideration and having regard to the nature of offence committed by the petitioners, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, with certain conditions. Accordingly, they 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.II, Kulithalai, on condition that each of the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent Police or to the Police Officer, who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that:

(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 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/- 22/02/2018 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO

1. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.II, KULITHALAI.

2. DO-THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KARUR DISTRICT.

3. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KULITHALAI POLICE STATION, KARUR DISTRICT.

4. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

+1. CC to M/S.V.KANNAN Advocate SR.No.2993 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.2610 of 2018 Date :22/02/2018 MS/PM-PN/SAR.1/02.03.2018/2P.6C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/