Arumugam v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Seventeenth day of November Two Thousand Seventeen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.DHANDAPANI CRL OP(MD) No.15750 of 2017 1 ARUMUGAM 2 ALAGR 3 ARCHUNAN 4 RAJU 5 VELLAIKANNU ... PETITIONERS / ACCUSED Rank 1 to 5 Vs THE STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE NATHAM POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL DISTRICT , CR NO. 189/2017. ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioners : Mr.V.BALAMURUGAN Advocate For Respondent : Mr.C.MAYILVAHANA RAJENDRAN Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners, who are arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 5, apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323 and 506(ii) IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act 2002, in Crime No.189 of 2017, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that there was a civil dispute in between the petitioners' family and the defacto complainant's family. On 07.06.2017 the petitioners attacked the defacto complainant's wife. Thereby, the defacto complainant's wife sustained injury and admitted in the hospital. Thereafter, the defacto complainant gave a complaint before the respondent police against the petitioners.
3. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the state on instructions, would submit that the injured person has been discharged from the hospital.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits
that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that it is a false case foisted against the petitioners in order to solve the civil dispute pending in between the petitioners's family and the defacto complainant's family.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the injured has been discharged from the hospital, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions. 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 on which the order copy is made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Natham, Dindigul District, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) each, with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent Police or to the Police Officer, who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that: (i) the petitioners shall report before the investigation officer, daily between 10.00 a.m. and 11.00 a.m., for a period of four weeks;
(ii) the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial; (iii) the petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation including custodial interrogation as and when required by the investigation officer;
(iv) the petitioners shall not commit any offence while on bail;
(v) 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 and the anticipatory bail granted stands cancelled automatically.
sd/- 17/11/2017 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, NATHAM, DINDIGUL DISTRICT
2 DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DINDIGUL DISTRICT 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE NATHAM POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL DISTRICT , 4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI +1. CC to Mr.V.BALAMURUGAN Advocate SR.No.34696 JAM/22/11.17/RR/SAR 1/ 3p-6c
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.15750 of 2017 Date :17/11/2017