Ganeshan v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Sixth day of July Two Thousand Seventeen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice A.M.BASHEER AHAMED CRL OP(MD) No.8412 of 2017 1 GANESHAN 2 A.KANDASAMY 3 R.VEERAMANIKANDAN 4 SANKILIDURAI ... PETITIONERS / ACCUSED No.1 to 4 Vs The State rep.by THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE NATHAM POLICE STATION, NATHAM, NATHAM TALUK, DINDIGUL DISTRICT, (CRIME NO. 233 OF 2017) ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. D. SELVARAJ 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 Nos.1 to 4, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 341, 294(b), 324, and 506(ii) I.P.C., in crime No.233 of 2017, seek anticipatory bail.
2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.
3.The case of the prosecution is that there is a land dispute between the defacto complainant and the accused herein and a civil suit is also filed by the defacto complainant and obtained an order of interim injunction and because of that, the accused was said to have attacked with the stick and caused injury to the defacto complainant and four others and all the injured were discharged from the hospital. There is a case in counter in Cr.No.234 of 2017 given by the first petitioner herein against the defacto complainant in this case.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners states that the petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case and the defacto complainant who has come to the disputed place created unnecessary problem and attacked the petitioners with rowdy elements and the civil suit is also pending before the Additional Subordinate Court, Dindigul. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent on instructions states that there are totally four accused in this case who are the petitioners herein and arrayed as A.1 to A.4 respectively.
6.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the injured were 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, Natham, Dindigul District 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 2 to 4 shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10.30 am for a period of two weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation and the petitioner No.1 shall appear before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation on receipt of summons. The petitioner shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously.
7.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/- 06/07/2017 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, NATHAM, DINDIGUL DISTRICT 2 -do-thro THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DINDIGUL DISTRICT 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE NATHAM POLICE STATION, NATHAM, NATHAM TALUK, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.
4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI +1. CC to M/S. D. SELVARAJ Advocate SR.No.63845 SM:CM-MSA:SAR 3:11.7.2017:2P/6C
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.8412 of 2017 Date :06/07/2017 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/