S.Christober v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Sixth day of May Two Thousand Fifteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice P.N.PRAKASH CRL OP(MD) No.8993 of 2015 1 S.CHRISTOBER 2 YAACOB 3 ESAKKU ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1, 3, & 4 Vs STATE REP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ERIYODU POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.

(CR.NO.179 OF 2015) ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.J.LAWRANCE Advocate For Respondent : MR.A.P.BALASUBRAMANIAN Govt. 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 an alleged offence punishable under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(ii) IPC in Crime No.179 of 2015, seek anticipatory bail.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that there was a wordy quarrel between the petitioners and defacto complainant due to previous enmity and on account of which, the petitioners had allegedly attacked the de-facto complainant.

3. It is represented that the injured had been discharged from the hospital and there is no previous case as against the petitioners. It is also represented that the second accused had been arrested and enlarged on bail. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, but with conditions.

4. 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 learned Judicial Magistrate, Vedasandur, on condition that each of 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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that: [a] the petitioners 1 & 2 shall report before the respondent Police Station everyday at 6.30 p.m. for a period of two weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation. The 3rd petitioner being a lady shall appear before the respondent police as and when required.

[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]. [e] The Inspector of Police concerned is directed to send compliance report to the office of the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) as to whether the petitioners are complying with the condition or not.

sd/- 06/05/2015 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,,VEDASANDUR 2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,DINDIGUL 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,ERIYODU POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL 4 THE ADDL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

+1. CC to M/S.J.LAWRANCE Advocate SR.No.25107

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.8993 of 2015 Date :06/05/2015 AA/07.05.2015/2p- 6c/ https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/