Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/979/2017ordered

Selvaraj, M/26, v. The Inspector Of Police,

2017-02-02Honourable Mr Justice A.M. Basheer Ahamed2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT (Criminal Jurisdiction) Thursday, the Second day of February Two Thousand and Seventeen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice A.M.BASHEER AHAMED CRL OP(MD) No.979 of 2017 1 SELVARAJ 2 MANIKANDAN ... PETITIONERS / ACCUSED 2 & 3 Vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THISAYANVILAI POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT CR.NO.18 OF 2017. ... RESPONDENT / DEFACTO COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.K.P.NARAYANAKUMAR 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 petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(ii) of IPC., in Crime No.18 of 2017, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that petitioners / A2 and A3 along with other accused attacked the defacto complainant with deadly weapons and caused injuries, in the Pongal Festival Temple competition.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners states that the alleged occurrence took place on 14.01.2017, but FIR came to be registered only on 17.01.2017. He would further submit that there are some disputes between A1 and the Temple administration regarding the conduct of competition, which resulted in wordy altercation between them. He would also submit that the petitioners have never committed any offence, as alleged by the prosecution and the petitioners are not even present in the place of occurrence.

4. The learned Government Advocate (crl.side) appearing for the respondent states that totally there are five accused in this case and the petitioners herein are A2 and A3 respectively and the petitioners said to have attacked the defacto complainant with iron https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

rods and caused simple injuries and the injured has been discharged from the hospital.

5. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, with certain conditions.

6. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nanguneri, 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 shall report before the respondent Police daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of three weeks and thereafter, as and when required, for interrogation. The petitioners 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 is made ready, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail stands dismissed.

sd/- 02/02/2017 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, NANGUNERI.

2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT.

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THISAYANVILAI POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT.

+1. CC to M/S.K.P.NARAYANAKUMAR, Advocate SR.No.5735. MPK PSM/SV-MMS/06.02.2017/2P/5C

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.979 of 2017 Date :02/02/2017 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/