Vijayan, v. The Sub Inspector Of Police,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Twenty Seventh day of November Two Thousand Seventeen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.DHANDAPANI CRL OP(MD) No.16210 of 2017 1 VIJAYAN 2 PAVUNRAJ 3 MURUGAN ... PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED NOS. 1 TO 3 Vs STATE REP.BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MARANERI POLICE STATION, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT.

(CRIME NO.222 OF 2017) ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioners: M/S.V.PASUMPON, Advocate For Respondent : M/S.K.ANBARASAN, Government Advocate(Crl.Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C.

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 3, who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 03.11.2017 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 341, 342, 323 and 506(ii) of IPC and Section 3 of TNPPDL Act read with Section 4 of TNPHW Act, in Crime No.222 of 2017, on the file of the respondent police seek bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is working in PDS shop. Since, she had illegal intimacy with other co-worker, the same was questioned by the petitioners, thereby, the petitioners attacked the defacto complainant and the defacto complainant sustained injuries and admitted in the hospital. Based on the complaint, a case has been registered in Crime No.222 of 2017 for the above said offence and the petitioners were arrested and remanded to judicial custody from 03.11.2017.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that the petitioners are close relatives of the defacto complainant and while the petitioners questioned the illegal act of the defacto complainant, it leads to attack the defacto complainant. Thereafter, the respondent police registered a false case against the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate(Crl.side) submitted that the injured has been discharged from the hospital and investigation is still pending.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

5. Considering the 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 enlarge the petitioners on bail with certain conditions. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail, subject to the following conditions: (i) 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 learned Judicial Magistrate, Sivakasi;

(ii)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;

(iii)the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial; (iv)the petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation including custodial interrogation as and when required by the investigation officer;

(v) the petitioners shall not commit any offence while on bail;

(iv)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 bail granted stands cancelled automatically.

sd/- 27/11/2017 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO

1. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, SIVAKASI.

2. DO-THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, VIRDHUNAGAR DISTRICT AT SRIVILLIPUTTUR.

3. THE OFFICER INCHARGE, DISTRICT PRISON, VIRDHUNAGAR.

4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MARANERI POLICE STATION, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT.

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

+1. CC to M/S.V.PASUMPON Advocate SR.No.35160 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.16210 of 2017 Date :27/11/2017 MS/PM-PN/SAR.2/27.11.2017/2P.7C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/