Perumal @ Pitchaiya v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the First day of March Two Thousand Eighteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice R.PONGIAPPAN CRL OP(MD) No.3238 of 2018 PERUMAL @ PITCHAIYA ... PETITIONER / ACCUSED RANK NOT KNOWN Vs THE STATE REP.BY ITS, THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE NAZARETH POLICE STATION, TUTICORIN DISTRICT, IN CR.NO. 203/2017 ... 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, who is arrayed as accused Nos.rank not known, apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent Police for the offence punishable under Sections 379 of I.P.C., registered in Crime No.

203 of 2017, seek anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that during the usual checkup, the defacto complainant found that the accused persons trying to take river sand illegally and transport the same through lorry and on seeing the defacto complainant they fled away from the scene of occurrence.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case, he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and he is in no way connected with the offences, hence he pleads for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that the investigation is still pending.

5.Submissions made on either side disclose that the offence under Section 379 of I.P.C., has been registered against the petitioner.

During the time of alleged occurrence, the petitioner stolen the river sand by using lorry. As of now, the property which was used for the commission of offence is recovered. Accordingly, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be necessary for completing the investigation.

6.Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 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 of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate Sathankulam, 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 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 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/- 01/03/2018 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

tm TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, SATHANKULAM 2 DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE TUTICORIN DISTRICT 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE NAZARETH POLICE STATION, TUTICORIN DISTRICT.

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

+1. CC to M/S.M.S.JEYAKARTHIK Advocate SR.No.3321 GJM/CSL/SAR-3-9.3.18-3P-6C

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.3238 of 2018 Date :01/03/2018