S. Manimanthiram @ Mariyappan v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Ninth day of April Two Thousand Fifteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice K.KALYANASUNDARAM CRL OP(MD) No.6341 of 2015 1 S.MANIMANTHIRAM @ MARIYAPPAN 2 P. PATCHAIKILI @VAITHAYALINGAM 3 P. MURUGESAN 4 P. BASKAR 5 C. MANIKANDAN ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1, 6 TO 9 Vs STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE SERNTHAMARAM POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT, CRIME NO.108/2015 ... RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.T.LAJAPATHI ROY Advocate For Respondent : M/S.K.V.RAJARAJAN, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners, who are arrayed as A1, A6 to A9, apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Section 294(b) I.P.C and Section 3 of TNPPDL Act r/w Section 34 IPC in Crime No.108 of 2015 and hence, seek anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution that the first accused was running a hotel in the land belonging to the panchayat and he was evicted due to which, the petitioners have damaged the bore well dug by the panchayat causing loss of Rs.50,000/-. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there was dispute between the President of the panchayat and the first accused and hence he had sent complaints about the President of the panchayat to the higher authorities. It is further submitted that the President of the panchayat had also demolished the Hotel run by the first accused. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners are innocents and they have not committed any offence.

4. The learned Government Advocate(Crl.side) submitted that the accused have conspired together and caused damage of the public bore well.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the State and also perused the entire materials available on record.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate,Tenkasi, 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 to 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 condition 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 made ready failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail stands dismissed.

sd/- 09/04/2015 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1.THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE TENKASI 2.DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT 3.THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT MADURAI 4.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE SERNTHAMARAM POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT +1. CC to M/S.T.LAJAPATHI ROY Advocate SR.No.18389 RL/6 C- 13/4/2015

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.6341 of 2015 Date :09/04/2015 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/