V. Sivakami, W/O.Ganesan, v. The Inspector Of Police,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Twenty First day of February Two Thousand Eighteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice R.PONGIAPPAN CRL OP(MD) No.2750 of 2018 1 V.SIVAKAMI 2 N.GANESAN 3 AMUTHA 4 SUNDARI 5 VAIJAYANTHI @ VAIJAYANTHIMALA 6 NAGU @ NAGAMMAL 7 G.PARVATHI 8 AJAY 9 R.SASTHA ... PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 9 Vs STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DINDIGUL TALUK POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.

CRIME NO.152 OF 2018 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioners: M/S.J.LAWRANCE, 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, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent Police for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 294 (b), 323, 355, 506(i) IPC in Crime No.152 of 2018, seek anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that due to family dispute, the petitioners herein have entered into the house of the de facto complainant and threatened with dire consequences. 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 in this case was treated as out-patient. 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 on 11.02.2018, due to family dispute, the petitioners herein have entered into the de facto complainant's house and committed the offence. As of now, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

part of the investigation is completed. Since, the offence was happened between the family members and also for the reasons that except Section 506 (i) IPC, all other offences mentioned in this petition, are bailable in nature, custodial interrogation may not be necessary for completing the investigation. More over, the injured in this case was treated as out-patient. 6.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.

I, Dindigul, 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 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/- 21/02/2018 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO

1. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I, DINDIGUL.

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

3. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DINDIGUL TALUK POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.

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

+1. CC to M/S.J.LAWRANCE Advocate SR.No.2880 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.2750 of 2018 Date :21/02/2018 MS/CM-VR/SAR.2/05.03.2018/2P.6C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/