V.Thillaikkarasi v. The Sub Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 08/10/2020 PRESENT The Hon'ble Mr.Justice G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN CRL OP(MD).No.11041 of 2020 1.V.Thillaikkarasi 2.M.Thirupathi ... Petitioners/Accused Nos.1&2 Vs The State Rep. by The Sub Inspector of Police, Devakottai Town Police Station, Devakottai, Sivagangai District.

(Crime No.300 of 2020) ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioners : Mr.B.Muruganandam, Advocate.

For Respondent : Ms.M.Anandhadevi, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C. PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.300 of 2020 on the file of the Respondent Police.

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners, who are arrayed as A1 and A2, apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under sections 341, 294(b) & 506(i) IPC, in Crime No.300 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that there is a dispute between the defacto complainant and the petitioners herein with regard to family properties. On 18.09.2020 at 9.30 a.m. the defacto complainant along with his friend was returning to home from Apollo Medicals and nearing Med Plus Medicals, the petitioners herein are alleged to have intercepted the defacto complainant and abused him in filthy language and threatened him that they would kill him, if he wants any property. Hence, the case has been registered.

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 entire complaint and allegations made against the petitioners herein are absolutely false. He further submitted that the father of the first petitioner and defacto complainant even during his life time settled his properties to all their children including first petitioner and the defacto complainant and there is no dispute over any of the properties as alleged. 5.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), appearing for the respondent police submitted that due to property dispute between the petitioners and the defacto complainant, the petitioners said to have threatened the defacto complainant.

6.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that due to property dispute between the petitioners and the defacto complainant, the petitioners said to have threatened the defacto complainant and no serious allegation made against the petitioners, 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 two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Devakottai, 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 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/- 08/10/2020 / 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, DEVAKOTTAI, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT.

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

3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DEVAKOTTAI TOWN POLICE STATION, DEVAKOTTAI, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT.

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

+1 CC to M/s.B.MURUGANANDAM, Advocate (SR-6855[I] dated 08/10/2020)

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.11041 of 2020 Date :08/10/2020 VSD TE/AKM/SAR-III : 14/10/2020 : 3P/6C