Vijay @ Vijay Aathavan v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 08/09/2020 PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice V.BHARATHIDASAN Vijay @ Vijay Aathavan ... Petitioner/2nd Accused Vs The State rep.by The Inspector of Police, Thirupalaikudi Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.

Crime No. 251 of 2020.

... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.J.John Rajaa Durai, Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.K. Suyambulinga Bharathi, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No.251 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police.

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner, who is arrayed as A2, apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under sections 294(b), 447, 336, 324 and 506(ii) of IPC, in Crime No.251 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that petitioner and the defacto complainant are residing in the same locality. On the date of occurrence, the petitioner and the defacto complainant's son viz., Arul Joseph have attended one marriage function in their locality. At that time, the petitioner scolded the defacto 1/3

complainant's son. When the same was questioned by the defacto complainant, there was a wordy quarrel between the petitioner and the defacto complainant, for which, the petitioner abused the defacto complainant by using filthy language and also assaulted him with wooden log and caused injuries. Hence, the present complaint. 3.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent.

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that A1 has already been arrested and released on bail by the lower Court. Hence, he seek anticipatory bail.

5.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), appearing for the respondent police submitted that the occurrence said to have taken place in a wordy quarrel. He further submitted that the injured person has already been discharged from the hospital. 6.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the occurrence said to have taken place in a wordy quarrel and the injured person has already been discharged from the hospital and A1 has already been arrested and released on bail by the Court below, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions. 7.

Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or her appearance, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Ramanathapuram District, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.

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

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

2/3

(d)the petitioner 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 petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner 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]; and; (f)if the accused/petitioner thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229-A IPC.

sd/- 08/09/2020 / 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 NO.I, RAMANATHAPURAM.

2.DO THRO'THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT.

3.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRUPALAIKUDI POLICE STATION, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT.

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

+1 CC to MR.J.JOHN RAJADURAI, Advocate (SR-6330[I] dated 09/09/2020)

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.9454 of 2020 Date :08/09/2020 vsg AE/VR/SAR-II (10.09.2020) 3P 6C 3/3