Prakash v. The Sub Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Twenty Sixth day of March Two Thousand Eighteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice R.PONGIAPPAN CRL OP(MD) No.4465 of 2018 1 PRAKASH 2 NAGAVEL 3 ANANDH ... PETITIONERS / ACCUSED Nos.2 to 4 Vs THE STATE REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE THONDI POLICE STATION, THONDI, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT (CR.NO.23 OF 2018) ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioners : Mr.S.MUTHUKUMAR, 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 petitioners/A2 to A4, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 324 and 506(ii) of IPC., in Crime No.23 of 2018, seek anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that due to previous enmity, the petitioners abused the defacto complainant by using filthy language, assaulted him by using Aruval and caused injuries and thereafter, they gave a life threat to him. Hence, the case has been registered against the petitioners for the above incident.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons, they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and they are no way connected with the alleged occurrence. He further submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he prays for anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent on instructions, would submit that the injured has been discharged from the hospital. He further submitted that the
investigation is still pending.
5. The submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for either side are considered. According to the prosecution, the person, who sustained injury during the time of occurrence was discharged from the hospital after completing treatment. Further, except Section 506 (ii) IPC, all the other petition mentioned offences are bailable in nature. Accordingly, custodial interrogation may not be necessary for completing the investigation. Therefore, considering the above facts and circumstances, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions.
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 Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvadanai, 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/- 26/03/2018 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THIRUVADANAI, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT 2 DO-THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, RAMANATHAPURAM 3 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE THONDI POLICE STATION, THONDI, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT 4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI +1. CC to MR.S.MUTHUKUMAR, Advocate SR.No.4837 PJL JAM/03/04/2018/ RR / SAR 4/ 3P-6C
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.4465 of 2018 Date :26/03/2018