Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/19938/2016granted

Shanmugam v. The Inspector Of Police,

2016-11-10Honourable Mr Justice S. Vaidyanathan2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Tenth day of November Two Thousand Sixteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice S.VAIDYANATHAN CRL OP(MD) No.19938 of 2016 1 SHANMUGAM 2 SENGUTTUVAN 3 VIMALATHIYAN ..PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 to 3 Vs.

STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ORATHANADU POLICE STATION, THANJAVUR.

(CRIME NO.568 OF 2016) ..RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.O.S.THILAK PASUMPADIYAR Advocate For Respondent : M/s.S.PRABHA, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 294(b), 324 and 506(ii) IPC in Crime No.568 of 2016 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that due to civil dispute, there was some wordy quarrel arose between the petitioners and the de facto complainant and the petitioners abused the de facto complainant and threatened him with dire consequences. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have been falsely implicated in this case.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) submitted that investigation is almost completed.

5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, 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 his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Orathanadu, Thanjavur District on condition that the petitioners 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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that:

[a] the petitioners shall report before the respondent Police daily at 10:30 am 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]. sd/- 10/11/2016 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1 THE DISTRICT MUNSIF CUM JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ORATHANADU, THANJAVUR DISTRICT.

2 -do-thro'THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,THANJAVUR AT KUMBAKONAM. 3 THE ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ORATHANADU POLICE STATION, THANJAVUR. +1cc to M/s.K.M.Karunakaran, Advocate in SR.67969 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.19938 of 2016 Date :10/11/2016 PBK/MP/SAR-I 16/11/2016 ::2P-6C:

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