M. Senthilkumar v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Twenty Seventh day of July Two Thousand Sixteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice V.M.VELUMANI CRL OP(MD) No.12962 of 2016 1 M. SENTHILKUMAR 2 A. SAVITHIRI ... PETITIONERS / ACCUSED RANK NOT KNOWN Vs STATE THROUGH THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, PALANI, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.

(CRIME NO. 17/2016) ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S T.RAMASAMY Advocate For Respondent : MR.P.KANNITHEVAN 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 accused, apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for an alleged offence punishable under Sections 109 and 498(A) of IPC in Crime No.17 of 2016, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that both the petitioners are working in same Police station and they are colleagues. Except these relationship, there is no illegal relationship between the petitioners. He further submitted that they are innocent and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and their names have been falsely implicated in this case.

3. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that investigation of the case is pending.

4. Considering the fact that the petitioners are working in same police station, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 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, Palani, Dindigul District on condition that each of the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

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 petitioners shall appear before the respondent Police daily at 6.30 pm until further orders.

[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]. 6.The Inspector of Police concerned is directed to send a compliance report to the office of the learned Government Advocate, as to whether the petitioner is complying with the condition or not. sd/- 27/07/2016 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TRP TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, PALANI, DINDIGUL DISTRICT 2 DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,DINDIGUL DISTRICT 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, PALANI, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.

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

+1. CC to M/S T.RAMASAMY Advocate SR.No.39863 GJM/GSV/PM/SAR-I-29.7.16-2P-6C

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.12962 of 2016 Date :27/07/2016 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/