Rasu v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Twenty Ninth day of July Two Thousand Sixteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice V.M.VELUMANI CRL OP(MD) No.13283 of 2016 RASU ... PETITIONER/ SOLE ACCUSED Vs STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE MANUR POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT.

IN CRIME NO. 284 OF 2016 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S R.RAMACHANDRAN 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), 352 and 506(ii) of IPC in Crime No.284 of 2016, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that due to wordy quarrel, the petitioner attacked the defacto complainant and abused him in filthy language. On complaint, a case has been registered against the petitioner.

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 no one has sustained injury and the investigation of the case is pending.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that no one has sustained injury, 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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.5, Thirunelveli 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 daily at 10.00 am until further orders.

[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]. 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 petitioners are complying with the condition or not.

sd/- 29/07/2016 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.5 TIRUNELVELI 2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE MANUR POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT.

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

+1. CC to M/S R.RAMACHANDRAN Advocate SR.No.40545 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.13283 of 2016 Date :29/07/2016 trp SH/SK-SKN/SAR-III :01.08.2016:2P/6C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/