Muniyandi v. The Inspector Of Police,
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Twenty Third day of December Two Thousand Sixteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice A.M.BASHEER AHAMED CRL OP(MD) No.23617 of 2016 1 MUNIYANDI 2 ALEX 3 GUNCHITHADI ARUMUGAM 4 MARIMUTHU 5 MUNIASAMY 6 RAMAN 7 KARUPPASAMY 8 NALLAN 9 SAKTHIVEL 10 MOORTHI 11 AZHAKIMEENA 12 SANGILIAMMAL ... PETITIONERS / ACCUSED Vs STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PERAIYUR POLICE STATION, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT (CRIME NO.111 OF 2016) ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.P.BANUPRASATH 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 are arrayed as accused, apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 448, 294(b), 324, 454, 380, 426, 435, 323 and 506(ii) of I.P.C., and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act and Section 3 of Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act in Crime No.111 of 2016 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners herein are the accused in this case and due to local body election motive, the husband of the de-facto complainant Vijayan and 8 others attacked one Arumugam with aruval and
subsequently, he died and the case was registered in Crime No.93 of 2016 against the said Vijayan and eight others. He further submits that the petitioners herein are no way connected with the alleged occurrence.
3. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) states that totally there are 33 accused in this case and the petitioners herein are A6, A10, A16, A17, A19, A21, A23, A26, A27, A30 and A35 and the said accused along with the other accused caused damage to the house of the de-facto complainant worth about Rs.3 lakhs due to previous enmity.
4. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the petitioners herein are said to have damaged the house of the de-facto complainant, 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 their arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kamuthi and on their executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and each of the petitioners shall deposit a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to the credit of Crime No.111 of 2016 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kamudhi and 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.
5. 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/- 23/12/2016 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE KAMUTHI 2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE RAMANATHAPURAM 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PERAIYUR POLICE STATION, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT
4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
+1. CC to M/S.P.BANUPRASATH Advocate SR.No.83364 JAM/03.01.2017/SS 3/SAR 1 3P-6C
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.23617 of 2016 Date :23/12/2016