Sadaiyan @ Muniyandi v. The Inspector Of Police,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Twenty Ninth day of May Two Thousand Nineteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice R.PONGIAPPAN CRL OP(MD) No.7420 of 2019 1 SADAIYAN @ MUNIYANDI 2 VETRIVEL 3 KALIDHASS 4 SANTHANAM 5 KARUPPASAMY 6 CHINRASU 7 MANI @ MANIKANDAN (WRONGLY MENTIONED HIS NAME IN THE FIR AS MANI) ... PETITIONERS / ACCUSED No.2 to 6, 8 and 9 Vs THE STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PALANI TALUK POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.

Crime No.128/2019 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : Mr.S.MAHENDRAPATHY Advocate For Respondent : Mr.K.SUYAMBULINGA BHARATHI 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 No.2 to 6, 8 & 9, apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(ii) IPC, in Crime No.128 of 2019, seek anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that during the time of occurrence, petitioners attacked the defacto complainant by using iron rod and aruval and thereby, defacto complainant sustained fatal injury. Thus, on complaint, a case has been registered against the petitioners.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons, they did not commit any offence as alleged by the prosecution and their names have been falsely implicated in this case.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that the injured was discharged from the hospital and the investigation is still pending.

5.The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side are considered. It is alleged that due to some dispute, the petitioners attacked the defacto complainant by using iron rod and aruval and thereby, the defacto complainant has sustained fatal injury. In a case registered against the petitioners, except the offence under Section 506 (ii) IPC, all other offences are bailable in nature. As of now, the person who sustained injury in the alleged occurrence has also been discharged from the hospital after taking treatment. Hence, custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not necessary for completing the investigation. So, on considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail with some conditions.

6. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Palani, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each, with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent Police or to the Police Officer, who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further conditions that: (I) the petitioners as well as the sureties shall submit a copy of their Aadhar Card or any other identity cards issued by the Government, in proof of their address, along with the surety bonds; (ii) the petitioners shall appear before the respondent Police daily 10.00 a.m., for a period of three weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation;

(iii) the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

(iv) the petitioners shall co-operate for the investigation and the trial. The petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trail and in event of the petitioners abscond, the respondent police shall register a case as provided under Section 229-A IPC;

(v) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioners shall stand automatically cancelled and the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take

appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners 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/- 29/05/2019 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1.THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, PALANI.

2.THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.

3.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PALANI TALUK POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.

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

+1. CC to Mr.S.MAHENDRAPATHY Advocate SR.No.8908

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.7420 of 2019 Date :29/05/2019 TK/JC/SAR-4/04.06.2019/3P/6C