M.Arulanthu v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Sixteenth day of August Two Thousand Seventeen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice A.M.BASHEER AHAMED CRL OP(MD) No.10676 of 2017 1 M.ARULANTHU 2 G.JOHN PETER ... PETITIONERS / ACCUSED NO.2 & 3 Vs THE STATE REP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE RS MANGALAM POLICE STATION, RAMNATHAPURAM DISTRICT, CRIME NO.188/2017 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioners : M/S.A.S.VAIGUNTH Advocate For Respondent : MR.A.RAMAR, Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners/A2 and A3, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 324 and 506(ii) of IPC, in Crime No.188 of 2017, seek anticipatory bail.
2.The case of the prosecution is that there was a wordy altercation arose between the accused and the de-facto complainant and due to which, the accused persons abused the de-facto complainant with filthy language and attacked him with deadly weapons and also threatened the de-facto complainant with dire consequences. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners states that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. It is further submitted that a case in Crime No.187 of 2017 stands registered against the de-facto complainant and his henchmen and as a counter blast, this case has been registered against the petitioners with an ulterior motive. 4.
The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent, on instructions, would submit that there are totally three named accused in this case and the first petitioner is said to have attacked the de-facto complainant with aruval on the wrist of one injured person Kani and A2 attacked with aruval on the forehead of the de-facto complainant and both the injured have been discharged from the hospital and the investigation is still pending. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.
5.Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the injured persons have been discharged from the hospital, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, with certain conditions. 6.Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvadanai and on each of them 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 petitioners shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10.00 a.m until further orders. The petitioners shall comply with the conditions stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C., scrupulously. 7.The petitioners shall appear before the concerned Magistrate within a period of 15 days from the date on which the order copy is made ready, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail stands dismissed.
sd/- 16/08/2017 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE THIRUVADANAI, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT 2 DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE RS MANGALAM POLICE STATION, RAMNATHAPURAM DISTRICT, 4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI +1. CC to M/S.G.THALAIMUTHARASU Advocate SR.No.28764
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.10676 of 2017 Date :16/08/2017 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ er SVA/BS/RR/22.08.2017/SAR3/2P.6C