Sundaram v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Nineteenth day of July Two Thousand Sixteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice V.M.VELUMANI CRL OP(MD) No.12010 of 2016 SUNDARAM ... PETITIONER/SOLE ACCUSED Vs THE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ERIYODE POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL DISTRICT, CR NO. 276 OF 2016. ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT FOR PETITIONER : M/S S.PUGALENTHI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT : Mr.P.KANNITHEVAN, GOVERNMENT 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), 506(ii), 323 and 324 of IPC in Crime No.276 of 2016, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that due to wordy quarrel, the petitioner attacked the defacto complainant and also threatened him with dire consequences.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and his name has been falsely implicated in this case.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that the injured has been discharged from the hospital and the investigation of the case is pending. He further submitted that this is the case and counter case.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the injured has already been discharged from the hospital, I am 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 District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Vedachandur, Dindigul District and 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 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 report 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 petitioner 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/- 19/07/2016 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO

1. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, VEDACHANDUR, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT.

2. THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT AT SRIVILLIPUTHUR.

3. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ERIYODE POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.

4. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

+1. CC to M/S S.PUGALENTHI Advocate SR.No. 38304 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.12010 of 2016 TRP Date :19/07/2016 TE/ARK-PV/SAR-II : 22/07/2016 : 2P/6C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/