V.Murugaraja v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Twenty Third day of August Two Thousand Seventeen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice A.M.BASHEER AHAMED CRL OP(MD) No.10933 of 2017 1 V.MURUGARAJA 2 V.KARUPPASAMY 3 K.VALARMATHI @ MALARKODI 4 M.MURUGESWARI ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED Vs THE STATE REP.BY, THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE TALUKA POLICE STATION, BODINAYAKANOOR, CRIME NO. 545 OF 2017 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.R.SARAVANAN 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/A1 to A4, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(ii) of IPC., in Crime No.545 of 2017, seek anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that due to wordy quarrel between one Sadayandi and the accused herein who is the relative of the defacto complainant in this case, the first and second petitioner is said to have beaten one Sadayandi and also the second petitioner attacked with Aruval on the head and also the chin of the defacto complainant and A3 & A4 said to have pulled the hair of the wife of the elder brother of the defacto complainant and all the accused are said to have using filthy language and also threatened with dire consequence.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners states that the first and second petitioner are the brothers and the third petitioner is the wife of second petitioner; fourth petitioner is the wife of first petitioner. The defacto complainant is the neighbour of the petitioners. He would further submit that the petitioners are no way connected with the alleged offence and the defacto complainant with ill motive had given a false complaint against these petitioners herein.
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent, on instructions, would submit that there are totally four accused in this case and the petitioners herein are arrayed as A1 to A4 respectively. He would further sumbit that injured was discharged from the hospital and the investigation is still pending.
5. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that, injured was 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, Bodinayakanoor, on condition that each petitioners 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 the petitioners shall report before respondent Police daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of three weeks. 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/- 23/08/2017 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,BODINAYAKANOOR, THENI DISTRICT. 2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THENI DISTRICT. 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE TALUKA POLICE STATION, BODINAYAKANOOR, 4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
+1. CC to M/S.R.SARAVANAN Advocate SR.No.29300 VS/PJL CSL/RR-BS/SAR-I/30.08.2017 : 2P/6C
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.10933 of 2017 Date :23/08/2017 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/