Karthik @ Karthikeyan v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 03/03/2021 PRESENT The Hon'ble Mr.Justice M.NIRMAL KUMAR CRL OP(MD). No.3041 of 2021 Karthik @ Karthikeyan ... Petitioner/Accused No.2 Vs The State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Musiri Police Station, Tiruchirapalli District.

Crime No.96/2021 ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar, Advocate. for M/s.R.Selvaraj.R., For Respondent : Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervener : Mr.K.Arunraj, Advocate PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.96 of 2021 on the file of the Respondent police.

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner, who is arrayed as A2, apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offence punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 307 and 506(i) of IPC and Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act, 1992, in Crime No.96 of 2021, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that earlier on 17.02.2021, due to dispute with regard to supply of food in Pandamangalathar Hotel, there was a wordy quarrel between A1 and the defacto complainant, in which, the petitioner and other accused said to have abused the defacto complainant by using filthy language and attacked him and also caused damage to the hotel. A1 is the younger brother of the petitioner. On the same day, one Suresh, who is the defacto complainant in Crime No.96 of 2021, came to the alleged occurrence place and he has taken video in his phone. Thereafter, he went to Musiri Government Hospital to meet the owner of the said hotel viz., Baskar. At that time, the petitioner along with other accused were said to have picked quarrel with the said Baskar and threatened him

to withdraw the complaint. The defacto complainant was said to have tried to take video, the petitioner and other accused persons were said to have snatched his phone and thrown away and pushed him and assaulted him. Due to which, he sustained injury. Hence, the present complaint.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that since the petitioner is the elder brother of A1, he has been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police submitted that totally there are two accused in this case, in which, the petitioner has been arrayed as A2. He further submitted that on the date of occurrence the defacto complainant went to the hotel for gathering the news of earlier occurrence, at that time the petitioner and other accused persons were said to have attacked the defacto complainant and threatened him with dire consequences.

5.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and intervener/defacto complainant and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent.

6.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that there is no other serious allegation against the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions. 7.Accordingly, the petitioner shall draw a demand draft in favour of the defacto complainant for a sum of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Thousand only) without prejudice to his rights and contentions before the trial Court. The petitioner shall produce the proof of remittance /submission of Demand Draft to the defacto complainant while executing sureties.

On acknowledgment of the same by the defacto complainant, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or his appearance, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Musiri, Trichy District, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.

(b)the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m for a period of two weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation.

(c)the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

(d)the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

(e)on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/ Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner 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]; and; (f)if the accused/petitioner thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229-A IPC.

sd/- 03/03/2021 / TRUE COPY / / /2021 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

TO

1. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MUSIRI, TRICHY DISTRICT.

2. DO-THROUGH : THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, TRICHY DISTRICT.

3. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MUSIRI POLICE STATION, TIRUCHIRAPALLI DISTRICT.

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

ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.3041 of 2021 Date :03/03/2021 (1/2) VSG TE/JC/SAR-IV : 09/03/2021 : 3P/5C