Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/1776/2017allowed

Karikalan, v. State: Rep By

2017-03-01Honourable Mr Justice A.M. Basheer Ahamed2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the First day of March Two Thousand Seventeen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice A.M.BASHEER AHAMED CRL OP(MD) No.1776 of 2017 KARIKALAN, ... PETITIONER / SOLE ACCUSED Vs STATE: REP BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRUVONAM POLICE STATION, THANJAVUR DIST.

(CRIME NO.23/2017) ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.S.DEENADHAYALAN Advocate For Respondent : MR.P.KANDASAMY Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner, who is arrayed as sole accused, in Crime No.23 of 2017 on the file of the respondent police, apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 352, 353, 355 and 506(i) IPC and hence, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the respondent/State. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has never committed any offence as alleged by the respondent Police and moreover, mere wordy quarrel arose on the alleged occurrence day, since, without prior information, the defacto complainant said to have removed the Seemai Karuvela trees and no alleged occurrence has happened as alleged by the defacto complainant.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent on instructions submitted that the petitioner is the sole accused in this case and he used filthy language and made a threat with dire consequences against the defacto complainant, who is working as Road Mazdoor, for removal of Seemai Karuvela trees and at that time, the petitioner said to have interfered and prohibited the defacto complainant from doing his job.

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

5.Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, with certain conditions. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Orathanadu and on his 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 petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation. The petitioner shall comply with the conditions stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously. 6.The petitioner 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/- 01/03/2017 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ORATHANADU, THANJAVUR DISTRICT.

2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THANJAVUR DISTRICT.

3 STATE: REP BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THRUVONAM POLICE STATION, THANJAVUR DIST.

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

+1. CC to M/S.S.DEENADHAYALAN Advocate SR.No.12443

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.1776 of 2017 Date :01/03/2017 MKV-CM-MSA-SAR 3/6.3.2017/2P-6C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/