Dharmalingam v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Twelfth day of March Two Thousand Eighteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice R.PONGIAPPAN CRL OP(MD) No.3790 of 2018 1 DHARMALINGAM 2 ARUMUGAM 3 CHENDURMURUGAN 4 JOTHIRAJA 5 KAMARAJ 6 ARUMUGAM 7 CHANDRAN 8 KALIDURAI 9 KAMALESHAN ... PETITIONERS / ACCUSED 1 to 3 5 to 8, 11, 12 Vs THE STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE KAMUTHI POLICE STATION, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT , IN CR.NO. 536/2017 ... COMPLAINANT/ RESPONDENT For Petitioners : MR.D.BALAMURUGAPANDI Advocate For Respondent : Mr.A.ROBINSON, Government Advocate(Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners, who are arrayed as accused nos.
1 to 3, 5 to 8, 11 and 12, apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 341 and 188 of IPC in Crime No.536 of 2017, seek anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners and other accused are said to have blocked the road against the demarcation of their ward. Thus, on complaint, a case has been registered against the petitioners.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they did not commit any offence as alleged by the prosecution and their names have been falsely implicated in this case.
4.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that the investigation of the case is still pending. 5.The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side are considered. It is alleged, during the time of occurrence, the petitioners and other accused made road rogue against demarcation of Panchayat ward. Considering the nature of offences committed by the petitioners, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners may not be necessary for completing the investigation. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail with some stringent conditions to the petitioners.
6. Accordingly, the petitioners 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 District Munsif - Cum - Judicial Magistrate, Kamuthi, Ramanathapuram District, 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 appear before the respondent Police daily 10.00 a.m. for a period of two 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/- 12/03/2018 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
TO 1 THE DISTRICT MUNSIF CUM JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KAMUTHI, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT
2 DO-THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, RAMANATHAPURAM 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE KAMUTHI POLICE STATION, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT 4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI +1. CC to M/S.D.BALAMURUGAPANDI Advocate SR.No.3950 trp JAM/19/03/2018/RR / SAR 1 / 3p-6c
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.3790 of 2018 Date :12/03/2018