Natheem v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Twenty Fifth day of April Two Thousand Sixteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice G.CHOCKALINGAM CRL OP(MD) No.6592 of 2016 NATHEEM ... PETITIONER / ACCUSED NO.6 Vs STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE THUCKALAY POLICE STATION KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT (CRIME NO.122/2016) ... RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S S.M.A. JINNAH Advocate For Respondent : M/S.A.P.BALASUBRAMANI, Government Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner/A6 apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 147, 120(B), 307 r/w 116 of IPC, in Crime No.

122 of 2016 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.The de-facto complainant, who is the Inspector of Police working in Kottar Police station has lodged a complaint stating that on 09.02.2016, while was investigating the case in Crime No.90 of 2016, he was arrested one Abubucker Siddiq and he has given a confession statement stating that he belonged to INTJ party and on 01.09.2015 at about 8.00 p.m., he along with the accused assembled at rear to Nadukattupalli, Thiruvithancode and planned to kill BJP party members.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a law student and he used to give legal assistance to the innocent persons, who were illegally detained by the Thuckalay Police officials and he has also filed wit petitions and private complaints against the erred police officials and due to which, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondent has submitted that so many cases are pending against

the petitioner and hence, he has objected to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5.Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the allegation made against the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

6.Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Padmanabapuram and on his executing 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 learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the petitioner shall appear before the Inspector of Police, Town Police Station, Virudhunagar daily at 06.30 a.m. and 06.30 p.m. until further orders. The petitioner shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously. The respondent police is at liberty to secure the petitioner in the event of non-compliance of the above conditions.

7.The petitioner shall appear before the concerned Magistrate within a period of 15 days from the date on which the order copy made ready, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail stands dismissed.

sd/- 25/04/2016 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1.THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, PADMANABHAPURAM 2.DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT AT NAGERCOIL 3.THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI 4.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE TOWN POLICE STATION, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT 5.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE THUCKALAY POLICE STATION, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT +1. CC to M/S S.M.A. JINNAH Advocate SR.No.23722 RL/7C/2P/SKS/RR/ARI/3/5/2016

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.6592 of 2016 Date :25/04/2016 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/