Junson Muthuraj v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Second day of August Two Thousand Sixteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice V.M.VELUMANI CRL OP(MD) No.13531 of 2016 JUNSON MUTHURAJ ... PETITIONER/SOLE ACCUSED Vs THE STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE KARUNGAL POLICE STATION, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT.

CRIME NO. 387/2016 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S R.RUSSEL RAJ 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 petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for an alleged offence punishable under Sections 448,294(b),387,388,307 and 506(ii) of IPC in Crime No.387 of 2016, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that due to previous enmity, the petitioner trespassed into the property of the defacto complainant and abused him in filthy language and also threatened with dire consequences.

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 the petitioner is a History Sheeter in H.S.No.113 of 2016 and he is having two previous cases and prayed for dismissal of this petition.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, 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 of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel, Kanyakumari 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 and 5.00 pm 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 petitioner is complying with the condition or not. sd/- 02/08/2016 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE ERANIEL, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT.

2 DO THRO THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT AT NAGERCOIL.

3 THE ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE KARUNGAL POLICE STATION, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT.

+1CC to M/S.R.RUSSEL RAJ, Advocate, SR.No. 41315

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.13531 of 2016 Date :02/08/2016 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ AM/GSV.PM/SAR-I/05.08.2016/2P/6C