Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/2328/2016allowed

Meenakshisundaram v. The Inspector Of Police

2016-02-09Honourable Mr Justice P. N. Prakash2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Ninth day of February Two Thousand Sixteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice P.N.PRAKASH CRL OP(MD) No.2328 of 2016 MEENAKSHISUNDARAM ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 Vs STATE REP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE TALUK POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.

(IN CRIME NO. 57/2016) ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S L.GEORGE PAUL ANTO Advocate For Respondent : MR.A.P.BALASUBRAMANI Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner, who apprehended arrest at the hands of the respondent Police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323 and 506(ii) I.P.C., in Crime No.57 of 2016, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. Heard Mr.L.George Paul Anto, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner / 2nd Accused and Mr.A.P.Balasubramani, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the State.

3. Taking into consideration the fact that the co-accused have been granted anticipatory bail by this Court, this Court is of the view that this a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner / 2nd Accused. Accordingly, he is 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 Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dindigul, Dindigul District, on condition that the petitioner / 2nd Accused 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 to the Police Officer, who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that:

(i) the petitioner / 2nd Accused shall report before the respondent Police daily at 06.30 p.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter as and when https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

required for interrogation.

(ii) the petitioner / 2nd Accused shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

(iii) the petitioner / 2nd Accused shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

(iv) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner / 2nd Accused in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner / 2nd Accused 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].

4. The Inspector of Police concerned is directed to send a compliance report to the office of the learned Government Advocate, as to whether the petitioner is complying with the conditions or not.

sd/- 09/02/2016 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I,DINDIGUL, DINDIGUL DISTRICT 2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,DINDIGUL 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE TALUK POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.

4 THE ADDL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

+1. CC to M/S L.GEORGE PAUL ANTO Advocate SR.No.7901

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.2328 of 2016 Date :09/02/2016 AA/SKS-RR/ARI/11.02.2016/2p-6c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/