Manoharan v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Thirteenth day of July Two Thousand Seventeen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice A.M.BASHEER AHAMED CRL OP(MD) No.8323 of 2017 1 MANOHARAN 2 SELVAM ... PETITIONERS / ACCUSED No.1 & 2 Vs The State rep.by THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE VIRUVEEDU POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL DISTRICT CRIME NO. 70/2017 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioners : M/S.S.C.HEROLD SINGH Advocate For Respondent : Mr.A.Ramar, Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners / Accused No.1 & 2, who were apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 294(b),324 and 506(ii) IPC in Crime No.70 of 2017 on the file of the respondent police and seek anticipatory bail.
2.The case of the prosecution is that there was a property dispute between the defacto complainant and the petitioners in this case and due to that motive, the petitioners are said to have attacked the de facto complainant with iron rod and caused injuries. The first petitioner is said to have attacked on the head of the defacto complainant and the second petitioner is said to have attacked upon the right thumb and index finger and caused injuries.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners states that the petitioners are innocent and they have not committed any offence as alleged in the complaint and their names have been falsely implicated in this case. He would further state that from the date of sale deed in the year, 1982 petitioners are in possession of the disputed property.
4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent on instructions would submit that there are totally five accused in this case and the petitioners herein are arrayed as A1 and A2. He would further state that A1 attacked with iron rod on the head of the defacto complainant and A2 attacked on the right https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
thumb and also the index fingers and A3 to A5 are still absconding and the Investigation is still pending. He would further state that the Injured was discharged from the hospital. 5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that injured was discharged from the Hospital, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, with certain conditions. Accordingly the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Nilakottai and on each of them 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 petitioners shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders. The petitioners shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously.
6.The petitioners 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/- 13/07/2017 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I, NILAKOTTAI 2 -DO-THRO THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DINDIGUL DISTRICT 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE VIRUVEEDU POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL DISTRICT 4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI +1. CC to M/S.S.C.HEROLD SINGH Advocate SR.No.26475 SM:CM-MSA:SAR 1:14.7.2017:2P/6C
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.8323 of 2017 Date :13/07/2017 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/