Mahila v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Fourteenth day of September Two Thousand Fifteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice K.KALYANASUNDARAM CRL OP(MD) No.16978 of 2015 1 MAHILA 2 A.BALU ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.5&6 Vs THE STATE REP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE M.KALLUPATTI POLICE STATION, PERAIYUR TALUK, MADURAI DISTRICT (CRIME NO.49/2015) ... RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S K.RENGANATHAN Advocate For Respondent : M/S.S.PRABHA, Govt. 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.5 and 6, apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 341, 342 and 302 of I.P.C., in Crime No.49 of 2015 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail.
2. According to the de-facto complainant that one Sumathi, D/o. Rajendran and sister of the deceased Baskaran was married one Ramasamy, S/o. Vanaraja about four years back and out of the lawful wedlock, two children were born to them and they forced the son-inlaw of the de-facto complainant to settle their loan amount and therefore, on 03.08.2015, a Panchayat was convened in which, the accused have challenged the deceased for convening the Panchayat in their village and thereafter, a wordy quarrel arose and the first accused has attacked the deceased with knife, while the second accused Sathish Kumar caught hold of him.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that according to the de-facto complainant viz., Sumathi, S/o.Rajendran, that the deceased was attacked with knife by the first accused and the second accused caught hold of the deceased at the time of occurrence. It is further submitted that even as per the complaint, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
the other accused 2 to 6 have scolded the deceased and his family members. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they have been implicated in this case as they are daughter and son-in-law of the first accused.
4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) submitted that as per the statement of the witnesses, the accused 5 and 6 have caught hold of the deceased and also prevented him from escaping from the scene of occurrence. It is specifically submitted that the prime accused A1 and A2 have been arrested in this case.
5. Considering the overt act attributed against the petitioners, 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 their arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Usilampatti and on their executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the petitioners shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10.00 a.m. until further orders. The petitioners shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously.
6. The petitioners shall appear before the concerned Magistrate within a period of 15 days from the date on which the order copy made ready, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail stands dismissed.
sd/- 14/09/2015 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
TO 1.THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.II, USILAMPATTI 2.DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MADURAI DISTRICT 3.THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI 4.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE M.KALLUPATTI POLICE STATION, PERAIYUR TALUK, MADURAI DISTRICT +1. CC to M/S K.RENGANATHAN Advocate SR.No.54134 RL/6 C- 22/9/2015
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.16978 of 2015 Date :14/09/2015 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/