K.S.Rameshbabu v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 29/09/2020 PRESENT The Hon'ble Mr.Justice V.BHARATHIDASAN K.S.Rameshbabu ... Petitioner/Sole Accused Vs The State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Aranthangi Police Station, Pudukkottai District.

In Cr. No. 145 of 2020. ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : M/s.G.Mathavan, Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.S.E. Veronica Vincent, Government Advocate (Criminal Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Section 438 of Cr.P.C PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No. 145 of 2020 on the file of the Respondent Police ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner is a sole accused apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under sections 294(b), 323, 506(i) of IPC, in Crime No.145 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is a sole accused. Earlier, the defacto complainant has filed a Public Interest Litigation before this Court and due to the same, on the date of occurrence, the petitioner said to have way laid the defacto complainant and abused him using filthy language and also assaulted with hands. Hence, the complaint.

3.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent.

1/3

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that the defacto complainant has filed a Public Interest Litigation before this Court making false allegations as against the petitioner. He further submitted that with the help of police the defacto complainant has demanded huge money from the petitioner for withdrawing the aforesaid PIL and refused the same, the present complaint has been filed against the petitioner with false allegations. Hence, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police submitted that due to previous enmity between the parties, the petitioner said to have pushed down the defacto complainant from bike and beaten with hands. He further submitted that no injury was caused.

6.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that due to previous enmity between the parties, the petitioner said to have abused the defacto complainant and pushed down from bike and beaten with hands, but he has not suffered any injuries, 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 his appearance, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Aranthangi, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.

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

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

(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 2/3

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/- 29/09/2020 / 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, ÀRANTHANGI.

2. -DO- THROUGH: THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, PUDUKKOTTAI DISTRICT.

3. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ARANTHANGI POLICE STATION, PUDUKKOTTAI DISTRICT.

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

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.10334 of 2020 Date :29/09/2020 KSA SRS/ AKM/ SAR-III/ 05.10.2020/ 3P/5C 3/3