R.Dharmaraj v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 06/07/2022 PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice G.ILANGOVAN R.Dharmaraj ... Petitioner/Accused No.7 Vs The State rep.by, The Inspector of Police, Ariyamangalam Police Station, Tiruchirappalli.

Crime No.754 of 2022.

... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.Shanmugaraja Sethupathi.D, Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.P.Kottai Chamy, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.754 of 2022 on the file of the Respondent Police.

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner is facing charges under Sections 147, 294(b), 323 and 506(ii) IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 in Cr.No.754/2022 on the file of the respondent.

2.It is a case and counter case. The dispute has arisen between the two groups of people over the administration of the temple, called Mariamman temple, in the village.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that two groups are operating in the village and there was dispute between them over the administration, in respect of which a suit in O.S.No.723 of 2018 is pending before the District Munsif Court, Trichy. There was compromise between the parties in the peace 1/3

committee meeting that was conducted by the Tahsildar concerned, but against that, on 26.06.2022, trouble has arisen between the parties, when one of the parties tried to violate the aforesaid peace committee meeting resolution, over which the aforesaid occurrence said to have taken place, for which the case and counter case have been registered.

4.Insofar as this petitioner is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not present in the place of occurrence during the relevant time and the complaint has been lodged on suspicion that the occurrence said to have taken place at the instigation of this petitioner.

5.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police submitted that no previous bad antecedents is reported against this petitioner.

6.Considering the fact that no previous bad antecedents is reported against this petitioner and considering the limited role that has been played by this petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Tiruchirappalli District, on condition that the petitioner shall execute 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 the petitioner shall appear before the respondent police once in a month at 10.30 a.m. until further orders. The petitioner shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously. 8.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 shall stand dismissed.

sd/- 06/07/2022 / TRUE COPY / /07/2022 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1.THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.VI, TIRUCHIRAPPALLI DISTRICT. 2/3

2.DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THIRUCHIRAPPALLI.

3.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ARIYAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, TIRUCHIRAPPALLI.

4.THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1. CC to M/S.SHANMUGARAJA SETHUPATHI D Advocate SR.No.6750

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.12095 of 2022 Date :06/07/2022 RK/SVR/SAR-II/20.07.2022/3P/6C 3/3