Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/20127/2015allowed

Perumal v. The Inspector Of Police

2015-10-16Honourable Mr Justice K. Kalyanasundaram2 pages

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.20127 of 2015 1 PERUMAL 2 R. MAHAVISHNU @ VISHNU 3 KARTHIKEYAN 4 SELVAKUMAR 5 E. AYYAPPAN ... PETITIONERS / ACCUSED RANK NOT KNOWN Vs STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE TALUK POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL,DINDIGUL DISTRICT.

(CRIME NO. not known OF 2015) ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S D.SELVARAJ 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 apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 294(b),323 and 506(ii) of IPC in Crime No.958 of 2015 and hence, seek anticipatory bail.

2.According to the defacto complainant that on 11.10.2015 due to previous enemity, accused came to his house and abused in filthy language and during that time, he fell down and sustained injury on his right leg. 3.The learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the accused and the defacto complainant are working in a garment factory and the defacto complainant caused damage to the properties of the garment factory and therefore the case was registered against him and only to escape from that case, he made a false complaint against these petitioners and admitted in hospital.

4.The learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) submitted that the injured is still taking treatment in the hospital and it is further submitted that the petitioners 4 and 5 are not accused in this case. 5.Considering the fact that the Petitioners 4 and 5 are not accused in this case, the petition against them stands dismissed. In respect of Petitioners 1 to 3, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioners 1 to 3 on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the petitioners 1 to 3 are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dindigul and on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with one surety each for a like https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

sum to the satisfaction to the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the petitioners 1 to 3 shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10.00 A.m for a period of one week and thereafter as and when required. The petitioners 1 to 3 shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Scrupulously.

6. The petitioners 1 to 3 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.) TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I, DINDIGUL 2 -do-thro THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DINDIGUL DISTRICT 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE TALUK POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL,DINDIGUL DISTRICT.

4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

+1. CC to M/S D.SELVARAJ Advocate SR.No.62089 sm:sks-rr-SAR II:26.10.2015:2P/6c

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.20127 of 2015 Date :16/10/2015 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/