K. Vijay 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.2846 of 2018 K. VIJAY ... PETITIONER / ACCUSED No.2 Vs THE STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE AZHAGAPPAPURAM POLICE STATION, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT IN CR.NO. 2/2018 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.P.AMEEN 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 petitioner, who is arrayed as accused No.2, apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offence punishable under Section 294(b), 324, & 506(ii) of IPC, in Crime No.2 of 2018, seeks anticipatory bail.
2.The case of the prosecution is that on 01.01.2018, when the defacto complainant came in his motor cycle along with his uncle's son Saravanan, the accused along with two other persons have abused the defacto complainant by using filthy language and assaulted him and subsequently giving life threat, subsequently, they escaped from the scene of occurrence. Hence, the defacto complainant lodged the complaint before the respondent police. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and did not commit any offence as alleged by the prosecution.
4.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that investigation is still pending. According to him, the injured person discharged from the hospital.
5.The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for either side are considered. It is alleged that during the time of occurrence the petitioner abused and assaulted the defacto complainant, due to which the defacto complainant sustained injury.
As of now, according to the prosecution he was discharged from the hospital after completing the treatment. So, in order to complete the investigation custodial interrogation may not be necessary. 6.Accordingly, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail 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, Karaikudi, on condition that the petitioner 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 petitioner shall report before the respondent police, daily at 10.00 a.m. for a period of three weeks and thereafter as 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 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, KARAIKUDI, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT 2 DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, SIVAGANGAI
3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE AZHAGAPPAPURAM POLICE STATION, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT 4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI +1. CC to M/S.P.AMEEN Advocate SR.No.2996 TM JAM/01/03/2018/VC/ SAR 4/3P-6C
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.2846 of 2018 Date :22/02/2018