P. Vallinayagam v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Twenty Fifth day of March Two Thousand Fifteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice P.N.PRAKASH CRL OP(MD) No.5573 of 2015 P. VALLINAYAGAM ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED Vs STATE REP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE NANGUNERI POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI DT, CRIME NO.166/2014 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. JACOB AND JACOB ASSOCIATE Advocate For Respondent : MR.A.P.BALASUBRAMANI Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for an alleged offence punishable under Sections 294(b), 324 and 506(ii) of IPC in Crime No.166 of 2014, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) appearing for the respondent.
3. It is the case of the prosecution that this petitioner attacked the defacto complainant and caused injuries.
4. It is seen that earlier the Sessions Court appears to have granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner in Cr.M.P.No.4987 of 2014 in this case. But, the petitioner had failed to furnish sureties on account of unforeseen family problems. It is also seen that this petitioner is involved in another case in Crime No.186 of 2014.
5. Taking into consideration the explanation offered by the petitioner for not furnishing sureties in Cr.M.P.No.4987 of 2014, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner 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, Nanguneri 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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
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 petitioner shall stay at Trichy and report before the cantonment police station daily twice morning at 10.30 a.m., and evening at 5.30 p.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter appear before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation.
[b] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.
[c] the petitioner 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]. [e] The Inspector of Police concerned, is directed to send compliance report to the office of the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), whether these petitioner is complying with the order or not.
sd/- 25/03/2015 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, NANGUNERI 2 -DO-THRO'THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE NANGUNERI POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI DT, 4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE CANTONMENT POLICE STATION, TRICHY 5 THE ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.5573 of 2015 Date :25/03/2015 NA/30/03/2015/P2/6C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/