M. Karunanithi, v. The Inspector Of Police,
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Twenty Seventh day of March Two Thousand Eighteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice R.PONGIAPPAN CRL OP(MD) No.4821 of 2018 1 M. KARUNANITHI, 2 SANTHOSHKUMAR, 3 CHITHRADEVI, ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED RANK A1 TO A3 Vs STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THONDI POLICE STATION, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT, CR.NO25 OF 2018 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioners : M/S.R.MURUGAN 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/A-1 to A3, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences under Sections 294 (b), 323, 324, 506(ii) I.P.C., and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act, in Crime No.25 of 2018, seek anticipatory bail.
2.The case of the prosecution is that due to previous enmity, the petitioners in this case, abused the defacto complainant by using filthy language, assaulted him with deadly weapons and cause injuries. Hence, a case has been registered for the above said offences.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that petitioners are innocent persons, they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and they have been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he prays for anticipatory bail. 4.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the State submitted that injured has been discharged from the hospital. According to him, investigation is still pending.
5. The submission made by the learned counsel appearing on either side are considered. It is alleged that during the time of occurrence, due to previous enmity, the petitioners in this crime abused and assaulted the defacto complainant by using the deadly weapons. According to prosecution, as of now, the injured has been discharged from the hospital, after completing the treatment. Apart from that, except under Section 506(ii) I.P.C., and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act, all other petition mentioned offences are bailable in nature. So, custodial interrogation of the petitioners may not be necessary for completing the investigation. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions.
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, Thiruvadanai, on condition that 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/- 27/03/2018 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
msa TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THIRUVADANAI 2 DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THONDI POLICE STATION, RAMNAD DISTRICT 4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
+1. CC to M/S.R.MURUGAN Advocate SR.No.4843 GJM/PMI/SAR-4-3.4.18-3P-6C
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.4821 of 2018 Date :27/03/2018