Manikandan v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 10/02/2023 PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA 1.Manikandan, 2.Saravanan, ... Petitioners/Accused Rank Not Known Vs The State rep.by The Inspector of Police, Pattukottai Taluk Police Station, Thanjavur District.
Crime.No.252 of 2022.
... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.KARUNAKARAN.K.M, Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr.P.KOTTAI CHAMY, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervenor : Mr.S.BAHEERATHAN, Advocate PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.252 of 2022 on the file of the Respondent police.
ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners/Accused, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 342, 354 and 506(i) of I.P.C., in Crime No.252 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution, as per the de-facto complainant Veesaliga, is that on 19.05.2022, while she was coming back from the college, the accused had attempted to kidnap her for the purpose of committing marriage against her wishes. Hence, the case. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocents and a false complaint has been given. He would further submit that the petitioners and the victim girl are close relatives and the victim girl is the sister's daughter of the first petitioner and that due to family problem, a false complaint has been given. He would further submit that though the alleged 1/3
occurrence is stated to have taken place on 19.05.2022, the complaint has been given on 23.05.2022. He would further submit that the major part of the investigation is over and thereby, he would seek for anticipatory bail.
4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) appearing for the respondent would submit that on 19.05.2022, while the victim girl was coming back from the college, the accused had attempted to kidnap her for the purpose of committing marriage against her wish and hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 5.The learned counsel for the intervenor would vehemently oppose for grant of anticipatory bail stating that the accused had attempted to kidnapped the victim girl for the purpose of committing marriage against her wish.
6.Heard. Perused the materials available on record including the First Information Report.
7.Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions:
8.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 on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pattukottai, 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, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed 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 the respondent Police, daily at 10.30 a.m., 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 2/3
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]. [f] If the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.
sd/- 10/02/2023 / TRUE COPY / /02/2023 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
SJI TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, PATTUKOTTAI.
2 DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THANJAVUR DISTRICT AT KUMBAKONAM.
3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PATTUKOTTAI TALUK POLICE STATION, THANJAVUR DISTRICT.
4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
+1. CC to M/S. KARUNAKARAN.K.M Advocate SR.No.2154
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.12407 of 2022 Date :10/02/2023 SA/VR/SAR.1/22.02.2023/3P/6C 3/3