Manikandan v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Thirtieth day of September Two Thousand Fifteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice K.KALYANASUNDARAM CRL OP(MD) No.17545 of 2015 1 MANIKANDAN 2 MAHARAJAN 3 KATHIR 4 PERIYASAMY ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED No 1 to 4 Vs THE STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE THISAYANVILLAI POLICE STATION, RADHAPURAM TALUK, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT.

(CRIME NO. 241 OF 2015) ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S S.R.ANBARASU Advocate For Respondent : MRS.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. 1 to 4, apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for an alleged offence punishable under Sections 294(b), 506(ii) of IPC and Section 12 of Tamil Nadu Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act (TNPOCSO), in Crime No.241 of 2015, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the first accused had one side love with daughter of the de facto complainant and due to the eve-teasing committed by the first accused, the de facto complainant stopped to pursue her 11th Standard and thereafter, also all the accused have threatened the de facto complainant to arrange the marriage for A1 and his daughter.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that even according to the prosecution, the eve-teasing was committed by the first accused and the overtact attributed against the accused Nos.2 to 4 is that they threatened the de facto complainant with dire consequences and therefore, the petition can be considered. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioners seek permission of this Court to withdraw this petition in respect of first accused.

4. Heard the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side). https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

5. Considering the overtact attributed against the petitioners 2 to

4, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the petitioners 2 to 4 are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nanguneri, Thirunelveli District, and on each of them executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) 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 twice a day daily at 10.00 am and 5.00 pm for a period of 30 days and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation. The petitioners shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Scrupulously.

6. In view of the endorsement made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, this petition is dismissed as not pressed, in respect of the first petitioner / A1. This Court is of the opinion, the 1st accused is not entitled for anticipatory bail.

7. 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/- 30/09/2015 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NANGUNERI, 2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE THIRUNELVELI DISTRICT 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE THISAYANVILLAI POLICE STATION, RADHAPURAM TALUK, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT.

4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT MADURAI +1. CC to M/S S.R.ANBARASU Advocate SR.No.57689.

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.17545 of 2015 Date :30/09/2015 AM/05.10.2015/KBM/SAR-I/2P/6C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/