Sophia Nanchiya v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Nineteenth day of March Two Thousand Fifteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice P.N.PRAKASH CRL OP(MD) No.5116 of 2015 1 SOPHIA NANCHIYA 2 S.JOSEPH ... PETITIONER(S) / ACCUSED 1 & 2 Vs THE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE TALUK POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL.

CR. NO. 183/2015. ... RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.R.SRINIVASAN Advocate For Respondent : M/S.A.P.BALASUBRAMANI Government Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 427, 452 and 506(ii) IPC r/w Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women's Harassment Act in Crime No.183 of 2015, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2. It is represented that the defacto complainant and the petitioners, being neighbours, they had quarreled and no one was injured and there are no previous cases against the petitioners.

3. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that no one sustained injury in the alleged occurrence and the petitioners have no previous antecedent, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Dindigul, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a separate 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] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ [b] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

[c] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

[d] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners 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].

sd/- 19/03/2015 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, NO.I, DINDIGUL.

2 Do - Through THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DINDIGUL DISTRICT. 3 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE TALUK POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL. +1. CC to M/S.R.SRINIVASAN Advocate SR.No. 13413. TS/20.03.2015/2P-6C

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.5116 of 2015 Date :19/03/2015 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/