Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/2648/2024granted

P Ravindran v. Sub Inspector Of Police

2024-02-20Honourable Mr Justice M.Dhandapani5 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Twentieth day of February Two Thousand and Twenty Four PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.DHANDAPANI P.RAVINDRAN ... PETITIONER / SOLE ACCUSED Vs THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE MANAPPARAI POLICE STATION, TRICHY DISTRICT.

(CRIME NO. 59 OF 2024) ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : Mr.D.SHANMUGARAJA SETHUPATHI, Advocate For Respondent : Mr.B.NAMBISELVAN, Additional Public Prosecutor For Intervenor : Mr.S.GOPALAMANIKANDAN, Advocate PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. PRAYER:- FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN CRIME NO.59 OF 2024 ON THE FILE OF THE RESPONDENT POLICE ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent Police for the alleged offence under Sections 294(b), 323 and 506(i) of IPC in Crime No.59 of 1/5

2024, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant was working as VAO in Malayadipatti Village and he approached the Tahsildar, Manapparai Taluk, in respect of a land dispute between the defacto complainant's father and someone. But the Tahsildar did not respond to the grievance of the defacto complainant. When the defacto complainant went to the office of the Tahsildar, he abused the defacto complainant using filthy language and attacked him on his left chest and cheek with hands. Hence, the present complaint.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Further, the petitioner was not in a position to recommend or forward the proposal for changing the patta as requested by the defacto complainant. Aggrieved over the same, the defacto complainant restrained the petitioner from discharging his official duty and threatened him with dire consequences. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail.

4. The learned counsel for the intervenor would submit that when the defacto complainant approached the petitioner, who is the Tahsildar of Manapparai Taluk, in respect of patta transfer, the petitioner attacked the defacto complainant with hands and abused him using filthy language. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant 2/5

anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that injured is discharged from the hospital. Hence, he has no objection to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the injured is discharged from the hospital, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail and he is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Manapparai, on condition that the petitioner shall execute 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 respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that:

(a)if the petitioner failed to surrender before the concerned Magistrate within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, this order shall stand automatically cancelled;

(b)the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the 3/5

surety bond and the Court concerned may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;

(c)the petitioner shall report before the respondent Police daily at 10.30 p.m., for a period of one weeks and thereafter, he shall appear before the respondent Police as and when required;

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

(e)the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial; (f)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; (g)if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229-A IPC.

sd/- 20/02/2024 / TRUE COPY / /02/2024 Sub-Assistant Registrar ( C.S. I / II / III / IV ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

4/5

INDU TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MANAPPARAI.

2 DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, TRICHY DISTRICT.

3 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE MANAPPARAI POLICE STATION, TRICHY DISTRICT.

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

ORDER

IN Date :20/02/2024 SA/VR/SAR. /27.02.2024/5P/5C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023. 5/5