Anthonisamy v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Twenty Third day of March Two Thousand Eighteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice R.PONGIAPPAN CRL OP(MD) No.4620 of 2018 1 ANTHONISAMY 2 AMALA PUSHPAM 3 GRECIYA ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED No.1 to 3 Vs STATE REPRESENTED BY, THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE THIRUVEGAMPET POLICE STATION, SIVAGANGAI DT., IN CR.NO.14/2018 ...1st RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioners : M/S.A.MURALIKUMAR, Advocate For Respondent : M/S.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/A1 to A3, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences under Sections 294 (b), 323 I.P.C., and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Woman Harassment Act, in Crime No.14 of 2018, seek anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that due to family dispute, the petitioners assaulted the defacto complainant and also abused him by using the filthy language. Hence, a case has been registered for the above said offences.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted the petitioners are innocent persons, they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Hence he prays for anticipatory bail.
4.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the State submitted that the injured has been discharged from the hospital. According to him, investigation 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 abused the defacto complainant by using filthy language and also assaulted the defacto complainant, thereby, he sustained injury. According to prosecution, the injured has been discharged from the hospital after completing the treatment. So, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, custodial interrogation of the petitioners may not be necessary for completing the investigation. Accordingly, they 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, Devakottai, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.
25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each 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 report before the respondent Police daily at 10.00 a.m. for a period of three weeks, 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/- 23/03/2018 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DEVAKOTTAI, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT 2 DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDCIAL MAGISTRATE, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT.
3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRUVEGAMPET POLICE STATION, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT. 4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
+1. CC to M/S.A.MURALIKUMAR, Advocate SR.No.4706
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.4620 of 2018 Date :23/03/2018 PK/PN/SAR-1/03.04.2018 : 3P/6C