Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/7727/2020ordered

Rajammal @ Rangammal v. The Inspector Of Police

2020-07-28Honourable Mr Justice V. Bharathidasan3 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 28/07/2020 PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice V.BHARATHIDASAN

1. RAJAMMAL @ RANGAMMAL

2. PERUMALSAMY ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 & 2 VS STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VEDASANDUR POLICE STATION, DINDUGUL DISTRICT.

CRIME NO. 1214 OF 2020.

... RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT For Petitioner : Mr.S.Balaji, Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C PRAYER :- To Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No. 1214 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police.

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners, who are arrayed as Accused Nos.1 and 2, apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under sections 294(b) and 506(ii) of IPC and Section 4 of TNWH Act, 2002, in Crime No.1214 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners and the defacto complainant are close relatives. Due to civil dispute, there was a wordy quarrel between the petitioners and the defacto complainant, in which, both the petitioners and the defacto complainant were said to have attacked each other. Hence, the present complaint.

1/3

3.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent.

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that it is a case in counter, earlier the petitioners have been attacked by the defacto complainant and hence, they have given a complaint against him and the same was registered in Crime No.1215 of 2020 for the offence under Sections 447, 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(i) of IPC and Section 4 or TNWH Act. As a counter blast, the present complaint has been filed. Hence, he seek anticipatory bail. 5.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), appearing for the respondent police submitted that it is a case in counter. He further submitted that in this case no one sustained injury and in the counter case, the petitioners were said to have sustained injury.

6.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that due to civil dispute, the occurrence said to have taken place and it is a case in counter and in this case no one sustained injury, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions. 7.Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or their appearance, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vedasandur, Dindigul District, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.

(b)the petitioners shall report before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation.

(c)the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

(d)the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

(e)on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/ Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners released on bail by the 2/3

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]; and;

(f)if the accused/petitioners thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229-A IPC.

sd/- 28/07/2020 / TRUE COPY / / /2020 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, VEDASANDUR, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.

2 DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE VEDASANDUR POLICE STATION, DINDUGUL DISTRICT.

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

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.7727 of 2020 Date :28/07/2020 vsg JM/PN/SAR 2/30.07.2020/3P/5C 3/3