Sugan v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Thirtieth day of November Two Thousand Fifteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice V.M.VELUMANI CRL OP(MD) No.22550 of 2015 SUGAN ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3 Vs STATE, THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ATHIRAMPATTINAM POLICE STATION, THANJAVUR DISTRICT.

(CRIME NO. 297/2015) ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S S.DEENADHAYALAN Advocate For Respondent : MR.P.KANNIDEVAN, Government 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 accused No.3, in Crime No.297 of 2015 on the file of the respondent police, apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 341, 324 and 506(ii) and hence, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that there was a quarrel between the son of the defacto complainant and the accused Nos.2 and 3 while playing games and therefore, on 29.09.2015, when the defacto complainant was proceeding in a two wheeler, the first accused waylaid the defacto complainant and attacked him with knife on his hands and backside.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is an innocent person and he is nothing to do with the alleged offence and he has been falsely implicated in this case.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was already granted anticipatory bail by this Court in Crl.O.P (MD)No.20027 of 2015. However, in that petition, the name of the petitioner was wrongly mentioned as Sudhan instead of Sugan and therefore, the petitioner was not in a position to execute sureties before the jurisdictional Court and hence, he has come forward with the present petition seeking anticipatory bail.

5.Heard the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) also.

6.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the petitioner was already granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order, dated 15.10.2015 in Crl.O.P(MD)No.20027 of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2015, but in the said petition, the petitioner's name was wrongly mentioned as Sudhan instead of Sugan and therefore, the petitioner has come forward with the present petition, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, with certain conditions. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pattukottai and on his 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 further condition that the petitioner shall appear before the respondent police shall appear before the respondent police 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/- 30/11/2015 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE ,PATTUKOTTAI.

2 DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,THANJORE DISTRICT. 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ATHIRAMPATTINAM POLICE STATION, THANJAVUR DISTRICT.

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

+1. CC to M/S S.DEENADHAYALAN Advocate SR.No.68211

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.22550 of 2015 Date :30/11/2015 CSL/JGB-DP/01.12.2015 2P/6C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/