R.Muniyasamy, v. The Inspector Of Police,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Thirtieth day of January Two Thousand Eighteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice R.PONGIAPPAN CRL OP(MD) No.872 of 2018 R.MUNIYASAMY, ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.1 Vs STATE REPRESENTED THROUGH THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRUPPULLANI POLICE STATION, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT.

CRIME NO.04 OF 2018. RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT BALAMURUGAN ...PETITIONER/INTERVENOR/ DEFACTO COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.R.ARAVINDRAJ Advocate For Respondent : MR.A.ROBINSON,Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) For Intervenor : MR.A.UTHAYAKUMAR, Advocate PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent Police for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 324, 307 & 506(ii) of Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of TNPPDL Act in Crime No.04 of 2018, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that due to a dispute in respect of collecting toll fee, a dispute arose between the petitioner and the de facto complainant and hence, the petitioner assaulted the de facto complainant and caused injury. 3.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and he is no way connected with the offences mentioned above, and pleads for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.

investigation is still pending.

5.The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side considered. It is alleged that during the time of occurrence, the petitioner along with other accused have assaulted the de facto complainant and caused injuries. Now, the person, who sustained injuries, was discharged from the hospital after completing the treatment. Therefore, custodial interrogation may not be necessary for completing the investigation. 6.Taking the above said aspects into consideration and having regard to the nature of offence committed by the petitioner, 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 Court No.I, Ramanathapuram, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.

(i) the petitioner shall report before the respondent Police daily at 10.00 a.m. until further orders.

(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 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/- 30/01/2018 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I, RAMANATHAPURAM 2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRUPPULLANI POLICE STATION, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT.

4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI +1. CC to M/S.R.ARAVINDRAJ Advocate SR.No.1603

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.872 of 2018 Date :30/01/2018 SMA/RR/SAR-3/06.02.2018:3P/6c