Muthukani, v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Twenty Third day of April Two Thousand Fifteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice K.KALYANASUNDARAM CRL OP(MD) No.7687 of 2015 MUTHUKANI, ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3 Vs STATE REP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE OTHAKADAI POLICE STATION, MADURI DISTRICT, (IN CR.NO.118 OF 2015). ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.N.JEYAKUMAR Advocate For Respondent : M/S.A.P.BALASUBRAMANI Government Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C.

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner, who is arrayed as accused No.3 in Crime No.118 of 2015 on the file of the respondent police, was arrested on 28.03.2015 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 and 302 of I.P.C., and hence, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 22.03.2015, the de-facto complainant along with her husband, son and daughter had gone to the house of the 1st petitioner, who is the Samanthi of the deceased to compromise the dispute with her son and the daughter of the 1st petitioner. At that time, the accused 1 and 2 have attacked the husband of the de-facto complainant with iron rod and knife and caused his death. The allegation against the petitioner is that she attacked the daughter of the de-facto complainant with hands and caused simply injury.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this is a case of case and counter and the complaint given by the first accused in this case was registered against the de-facto complainant party in Crime No.119 of 2015. It is further submitted that even according to the de-facto complainant, the accused 1 and 2 have caused fatal injuries on the deceased and the overt act attributed against this petitioner is that she attacked the daughter of the defacto complainant with hands and caused simple injury.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) submitted that the accused 1 to 3 were already arrested and remanded to judicial custody and the overt act attributed against this petitioner is that https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

she attacked the daughter of the de-facto complainant viz., Maheswari with hands and caused simple injury.

5. Considering the facts of this case and the overt act attributed against this petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with certain conditions. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on her 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 Judicial Magistrate, Melur and on further condition that the petitioner shall appear before the respondent Police daily at 10.00 a.m until further orders.

sd/- 23/04/2015 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MELUR 2 -DO-THRO'THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE MADURAI DISTRICT 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE OTHAKADAI POLICE STATION, MADURI DISTRICT, 4 THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, TRICHY 5 THE ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

+1. CC to M/S.N.JEYAKUMAR Advocate SR.No.21229

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.7687 of 2015 Date :23/04/2015 NA/23/04/2015/P2/7C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/