Ramarpandi@ Ramarpandiayan v. The Insepector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Thirtieth day of October Two Thousand Fifteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice K.KALYANASUNDARAM CRL OP(MD) No.20756 of 2015 RAMARPANDI @ RAMARPANDIYAN ... PETITIONER / ACCUSED No.20 Vs THE STATE REP.BY THE INSEPECTOR OF POLICE ABIRAMAM POLICE STATION, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT, CR NO.186 OF 2015 ... RESPONDENT(S) / COMPLAINANT(S) For Petitioner : M/S S.J.CHAKKARAVARTHY 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 petitioner, who is arrayed as A20 apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 336, 324, 335, 353 and 506(ii) and 307 of IPC, in Crime No.186 of 2015 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seeks anticipatory bail.
2.According to the de-facto complainant, the Inspector of Police that on 02.10.2015, the accused while conducting Aadal Paadal Programme had not followed the conditions imposed by the High Court and when the same was questioned, they attacked the de-facto complainant/Inspector of Police and also prevented the officials from performing their duties. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. The learned counsel further submitted that the de-facto 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 the other accused persons, but he could 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 co-accused were enlarged on anticipatory bail by this court in Crl.O.P(MD)No.19887 of 2015, dated 16.10.2015. 4.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) for the respondent submitted that the Inspector of Police concerned sustained injuries and he was discharged from the hospital.
5.Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
6.Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kamuthi and on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with one surety for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the petitioner shall reside at Dindigul and appear before the Dindigul Town North Police station daily at 10.00 a.m until further orders. The petitioner shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously.
7.The petitioner 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/- 30/10/2015 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE KAMUTHI 2 DO THRO THE CHEIF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT 3 THE INSEPECTOR OF POLICE ABIRAMAM POLICE STATION, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT, 4 THE INSEPECTOR OF POLICE DINDIGUL TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION DINDIGUL 5 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT MADURAI +1. CC to M/S S.J.CHAKKARAVARTHY Advocate SR.No.63582
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.20756 of 2015 Date :30/10/2015 AM/30.10.2015/NGM.SS/SAR-1/2P/7C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/