Boominathan v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Sixteenth day of October Two Thousand Fifteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice K.KALYANASUNDARAM CRL OP(MD) No.19888 of 2015 1 BOOMINATHAN 2 VARATHARAJAN 3 SENTHOORPANDIAN 4 RAMARPANDI@RAMAR PANDIYAN 5 SARAVANAKUMAR 6 RAMALINGAM 7 ARUNACHALAM 8 K. BOSE 9 MUTHUKUMAR 10 RAMASAMY ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1,5,6,7,8,9, (CRIME NO.184/2015) 13,17,21,30 Vs THE STATE THROUGH THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ABIRAMAM POLICE STATION RAMNAD DISTRICT.
(CRIME NO.187/15) ... RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S S.J.CHAKKARAVARTHY 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 A1,A5,A6,A7,A8,A9,A13, A17, A21 and A30 apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 294(b),341, 342, 323, 324, 336, 353 and 506(ii) of IPC in Crime No.187 of 2015 and hence, seek anticipatory bail. 2.According to the defacto complainant, the Inspector of Police, that on 2.10.2015, the accused while conducting Aadal Paadal programme has not followed the conditions imposed by the High Court and when the same was questioned, they attacked the defacto complainant/Inspector of Police and also prevented the officials from performing their duties.
3.The learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the defacto complainant is the Inspector of Police and in the complaint he has stated that he knew names of eight accused persons and he does not know the names of other accused persons, but he could https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
identify them. But in the copy of the complaint, he has given names of all the accused persons, their father's name and address, which would only reveal that the complaint was given after much consultation and deliberation. It is further submitted that the accused persons are poor agricultural coolies in the village and at the instigation of the defacto complainant in Cr.No.184 of 2015, they have been consequently roped in this case. 4.The learned Government Advocate(Crl.side) submitted that the Inspector of Police concerned sustained injuries and he was discharged from the hospital.
5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that the Petitioners are poor villagers who are only agricultural coolies and injured had already been discharged from the hospital, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate,Kamuthi, Ramnad District and on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with one surety each for a like sum to the satisfaction to the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the petitioners shall reside at Dindigul and appear before the Dindigul Town North Police Station 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/- 16/10/2015 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
TO 1.THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KAMUTHI, RAMNAD DISTRICT 2.DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT 3.THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI 4.THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE,DINDIGUL TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL 5.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ABIRAMAM POLICE STATION,RAMNAD DISTRICT. +1. CC to M/S S.J.CHAKKARAVARTHY Advocate SR.No.61907 RL/7C - 26/10/2015
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.19888 of 2015 Date :16/10/2015 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/