P. Sakthivel v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Sixth day of September Two Thousand Seventeen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice A.M.BASHEER AHAMED CRL OP(MD) No.9733 of 2017 P.SAKTHIVEL 2 KUMARAVEL 3 A.ARUN KUMAR 4 PREMKUMAR ... PETITIONERS / ACCUSED NO. 1TO4 Vs THE STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE TIRUCHENDUR POLICE STATION, TUTICORIN DISTRICT.
CR NO. 276/2017. ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioners : M/S.A.THIYAGARAJAN Advocate For Respondent : MR.A.RAMAR, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR For Intervener : MR.K.A.RAMAKRISHNAN, ADVOCATE PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners/A1 to A4, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 147, 294(b), 323, 379(NP), 451 and 506(ii) of IPC., and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act and Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act, in Crime No.276 of 2017, seek anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that all the accused entered into the office of the defacto complainant, who is practising advocate and attacked one Suryakala with hands and caused injuries. During the occurrence, the accused are said to have snatched 6 1⁄2 sovereigns of gold chain from the neck of the Suryakala and the said property was not recovered.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the intervenors states that the defacto complainant is a practising advocate and the injured Suryakala is the client of her and while discussing with the said client, the accused entered into the office of the defacto complainant and attacked her client and also damaged the chairs worth about Rs.900/- and the accused abused
with filthy language and threatened with dire consequence against the defacto complainant who is the practising female advocate.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners states that the said Suryakala is the mother of the third and fourth petitioners herein and the petitioners gave a complaint and searched her around Tiruchendur and the defacto complainant contacted the petitioners stating that her mother has come to her office seeking asylum and she asked them to come over there. When the petitioners went to the defacto complainant's office they came to know that she got affair with some other persons and therefore the third and fourth petitioners attacked her mother. He would further submit that petitioners are innocent persons and they have no connection with this offence. He further submit that the petitioner wantonly undertake to deposit the alleged the damage of Rs.900/- to the Crime No.276 of 2017 of learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchendur without prejudice the contention of the petitioner in this case.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent, on instructions, would submit that there are totally four accused in this case and the petitioners are arrayed as A1 to A4 respectively. He would further submit that the fourth petitioner was arrested on 25.08.2017 and released on bail on 31.08.2017 by concerned Session Court in Crl.M.P.No.2581 of 2017 dated 31.08.2017 and the injured was discharged from the hospital and the investigation is still pending.
6. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that injured was discharged from the hospital and the fourth petitioner was arrested during the pendency of this application, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail in favour of the petitioners A1, A2 and A3, with certain conditions and in respect of A4 anticipatory bail was dismissed, since he was arrested.
7. Accordingly, the petitioners A1, A2 and A3 are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchendur, on condition that each 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 to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the petitioners A1, A2 and A3 shall report before respondent Police daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders. The petitioners shall comply with the conditions stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C., scrupulously.
8. The petitioners shall appear before the concerned Magistrate within a period of 15 days from the date on which the order copy is made ready, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail stands dismissed.
sd/- 06/09/2017 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
VSA/RMI TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,TIRUCHENDUR 2 DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE TUTICORIN DISTRICT 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,TIRUCHENDUR POLICE STATION, TUTICORIN DISTRICT.
4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
+1. CC to M/S.A.THIYAGARAJAN Advocate SR.No.30260 GJM/RR/BS/SAR-2-12.9.17-3P-6C
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.9733 of 2017 Date :06/09/2017