Mega Sundhar Raj, v. The Inspector Of Police,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Twelfth day of January Two Thousand Eighteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice R.PONGIAPPAN CRL OP(MD) No.594 of 2018 MEGA SUNDHAR RAJ ... PETITIONER / SOLE ACCUSED Vs THE STATE THROUGH THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VALINOKKAM POLICE STATION, (IN CR.NO.2/2018), RAMANATHAPRUAM DISTRICT. RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : Mr.A.ARUPUTHA RAJ Advocate For Respondent :Mr.A.RABINSON, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner/sole accused, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 341, 294(b) and 506(ii) I.P.C., in Crime No.2 of 2018 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail. 2.

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner waylaid the defacto complainant and abused him in filthy language. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he is no way connected with the offence, as alleged by the prosecution and prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted that no one sustained injury in the alleged occurrence and further submitted that the investigation is still pending. 5.The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side are considered. It is alleged that for the wordy quarrel between the petitioner and the defacto complainant, this case has been registered against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b) and 506(ii) I.P.C., in which, except 506(ii) I.P.C, all other offences are bailable in nature. Admittedly, no one sustained injury in the alleged occurrence.

6.Taking note of all the abovesaid aspects into consideration and having regard to the nature of offence, 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, Muthukulathur on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent Police or to the Police Officer, who intends to arrest to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that: (i) the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.00 a.m., for a period of two 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/- 12/01/2018 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MUTHUKULATHUR, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT 2 DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VALINOKKAM POLICE STATION, RAMANATHAPRUAM DISTRICT.

4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI +1. CC to Mr.A.ARUPUTHA RAJ Advocate SR.No.641 JAM/18/01/2018/RR/ SAR 2 / 3P-6C

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.594 of 2018 Date :12/01/2018