Mani v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Nineteenth day of March Two Thousand and Eighteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice R.PONGIAPPAN CRL OP(MD) No.4304 of 2018 MANI ... PETITIONER / ACCUSED No.2 Vs THE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRUCHULI POLICE STATION, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT, CRIME NO.52/2018.
... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.B.ANANDAN 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/Accused No.2, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC, in Crime No.52 of 2018, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is a shepherd. On 01.03.2018, at midnight, the defacto complainant found that out of 95 goats, 4 goats were missing in his farm. He went in search of the missed goats and he did not able to find the same. Hence, he lodged a complaint before the respondent police. Hence, the case has been registered for the above said crime.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, he prays for anticipatory bail for the petitioner.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the State submitted that the stolen property was recovered by the respondent police and the investigation is still pending. He further submitted that the petitioner has no previous case.
5. The submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for either side are considered. It is alleged that during the time of occurrence, the petitioner and other accused in this case committed theft of 4 goats. As of now, the stolen property was recovered through the co-accused. Further, based on the confession given by the co-accused, the petitioner was implicated in this case. So, considering the nature of offence committed by the petitioner, custodial interrogation may not be necessary for completing the investigation. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.
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 No.I, Aruppukkottai, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.
(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 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/- 19/03/2018 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.1, ARUPPUKKOTTAI, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT.
2 DO THOUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, VIRUDHUNAGAR AT SRIVILLIPUTHUR.
3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRUCHULI POLICE STATION, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT.
4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
+1. CC to M/S.B.ANANDAN Advocate SR.No.4309.
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.4304 of 2018 Date :19/03/2018 SDS/PN/SAR.4/21.03.2018/3P/6C