Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/18989/2015allowed

Tamilmani@Aboorvan v. The Inspector Of Police

2015-10-07Honourable Mr Justice K. Kalyanasundaram2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Seventh day of October Two Thousand Fifteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice K.KALYANASUNDARAM CRL OP(MD) No.18989 of 2015 1 TAMILMANI @ ABOORVAN 2 PRASANNA 3 ANAND 4 SURYA 5 ARULENDHI @ ARUNKUMAR ..PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 to 5 Vs.

STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE SOLAVANTHAN POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT.

CRIME NO. 283 OF 2015 ..RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S J.VIJAYARAJA Advocate For Respondent : M/s.S.PRABHA, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervenor : Mr.ANANDA PADMANABHAN, Advocate 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 5, apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 109, 147, 294(b), 323, 341 and 506(i) of IPC, in Crime No.283 of 2015 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail.

2.According to the defacto complainant, on 17.09.2015 there was a quarrel arose between the second accused and the defacto complainant, for which, a complaint was given to the respondent police and after attending enquiry, when he came to his house, he was attacked by the accused. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners and the defacto complainant are Pangalis and in respect of property dispute, there was exchange of notices between the accused and the defacto complainant, dated 26.02.2014 and 04.03.2014 and the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. 4.Per contra, the learned counsel for the intervenor submitted that the defacto complainant is working as a Manager in Sri Ram Finance and the accused have quarrelled with the defacto complainant due to dispute over the parking of two wheeler and subsequently, attacked the defacto complainant, who is an Advocate and on 21.09.2015 again the defacto complainant was attacked by the accused, for which, a case is registered in Cr.No.293 of 2015.

5.Heard the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent.

6.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, 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 arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti 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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

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.

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/- 07/10/2015 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, VADIPATTI, MADURAI DISTRICT. 2 -do-thro' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,MADURAI. 3 THE ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT,MADURAI. 4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SOLAVANTHAN POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT.

+1. CC to M/S J.VIJAYARAJA Advocate SR.No.59257 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.18989 of 2015 Date :07/10/2015 PBK/SK-SKN/SAR-II 12/10/2015 ::2P-6C::

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/