S.Senthilkumar v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Eighth day of June Two Thousand Fifteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice K.KALYANASUNDARAM CRL OP(MD) No.9527 of 2015 1 S.SENTHILKUMAR 2 P.PERUMAL ... PETITIONER(S) / ACCUSED 1 & 3 Vs THE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE NAGAMALAI PUDUKKOTTAI POLICE STATION, MADURAI DIST. CRIME NO. 231 OF 2015. ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.B.CHANDRAN Advocate For Respondent : M/S.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 are arrayed as A1 and A3 apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324, 427, 379(NP) and 506(ii) of IPC, in Crime No.231 of 2015 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail.
2.The case of the prosecution is that on 22.05.2015 at 9.00 a.m., the accused attacked the de-facto complainant party and abused him with filthy language and also taken away a cell phone and 2-1/2 sovereigns of Talli belonging to the de-facto complainant.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that A1 is the owner of the property, which was purchased from A2 and A2 is the brother of the de-facto complainant and A3 is the relative of A1. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners are the owners of the property in dispute and for damaging the property, A2 lodged a complaint against the de-facto complainant and the same was registered on 15.05.2015 and at intervention of the Superintendent of Police, now the case was registered against the de-facto complainant party in Crime No.244 of 2015 on 04.06.2015 and only as a counter blast, this complaint was given on 22.05.2015.
4.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondent submitted that the accused have damaged the property of the defacto complainant and also taken away a cell phone and 2-1/2 sovereigns of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
jewels belonging the de-facto complainant. It is further submitted by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) that the injured has been discharged from the hospital.
5.Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the injured has been discharged from the hospital, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions.
6.Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai 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 of 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/- 08/06/2015 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, NO.VI, MADURAI.
2 DO THRO THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MADURAI. 3 THE ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT MADURAI.
4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE NAGAMALAI PUDUKKOTTAI POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT. +1. CC to M/S.B.CHANDRAN Advocate SR.No. 28587. TS/10.06.2015/2P-6C
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.9527 of 2015 Date :08/06/2015 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/