T.Hakkim v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 29.06.2021 PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice G.CHANDRASEKHARAN 1.T.Hakkim 2.Ismaiyl @ Mohammed Ismaiyl 3.Sadham @ Sadham Hussain 4.Ajmeer ... Petitioners/Accused No.1 to 4 Vs State Represented by, The Inspector of Police, Pattiveeranpatti Police Station, Dindigul District.

In Crime No.528 of 2021 ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioners : Mr.M.Maran, Advocate For Respondent : Mr.M.Muthumanikkam, Counsel for Government of TamilNadu (Criminal Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime no. 528 of 2021 on the file of the respondent Police.

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323 and 506(i) of IPC in Crime No.528 of 2021, seek anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that there is previous enmity between the defacto complainant and the accused in connection with the marriage of Geetha, second daughter of the defacto complainant with Sheik Abdulla, son of Hakkim. On 17.06.2021, at about 12.00 Noon, Geetha came to Sitharevu. The defacto complainant had gone to 1/3

see Geetha. At that time, the accused persons scolded the defacto complainant in filthy language and asked him why he had come there. The defacto complainant replied that he came to see his daughter. The accused Ajmeer with knife and Ismaiyl with iron rod had attacked the defacto complainant's head and body. As a result, the defacto complainant sustained injuries. Hence, the complaint. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and they did not commit any offence as alleged by the prosecution.

4.The learned Counsel for the Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police opposed this petition on the ground that investigation is still pending. It is his further submission that injured is discharged from the Hospital. 5.Considering the nature of the case and the fact that the injured has been discharged from the Hospital, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 6.Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nilakottai on condition that the petitioners shall execute 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 respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that: [a]the petitioners and the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity.

[b]the petitioners shall report before respondent police daily at 10.30 am., until further orders.

[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 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]. 2/3

[f]If the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229-A IPC.

sd/- 29/06/2021 / TRUE COPY / / /2021 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, NILAKOTTAI 2.DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.

3.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PATTIVEERANPATTI POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL DISTRICT 4.THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.8507 of 2021 Date :29/06/2021 MBI PK/MNR/SAR-IV/01.07.2021 : 2P/5C 3/3