Raja v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 18/07/2019 PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice P.RAJAMANICKAM CRL OP(MD). No.9922 of 2019 Raja, ... Petitioner/Accused No.9 Vs State rep by The Inspector of Police, Thenkarai Police Station, Periyakulam Theni District.

(Crime No. 253 of 2019).

... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : M/s.N.Ranjith, Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr. V. Neelakandan, Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No. 253 of 2019 on the file of the Respondent police ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable 147,148,149,294(b), 332,353,506(ii),323, 324, 307, 427 of IPC and Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act, seeks anticipatory bail

2. Heard both sides

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the above case. He further submitted that peace committee meeting

has been conducted and as per the decision taken by the peace committee , people of both villages agreed to keep peace and normality has been restored. He further submitted that police picketing has also been withdrawn and as of now no tension is prevailing in the said locality. He further submitted that injured person was also discharged from the hospital. He further submitted that some of the accused persons in this case was granted bail by this Court. Therefore he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that there was a communal clash between the two communities and there was a panic among the public to move freely in and around the occurrence place and when the Additional Superintendent of Police, Superintendent of Police and other police officials were inspecting the occurrence place to defuse the tension between the two community peoples and to maintain peace among the people to run their normal life, they were attacked by one group of community and they sustained injuries. Hence he strongly opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. However he fairly conceded that the injured was discharged from the hospital and normality has been restored. He further submitted that police picketing also has been withdrawn and as of now no tension is prevailing in the said locality. He further submitted that some of the accused in this case was granted bail by this Court.

5.Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the injured was discharged from the hospital and normality has been restored in that locality and also the fact that the police picketing also has been withdrawn and as of now no tension is prevailing in the said locality and also the fact that some of the accused persons in this case were already granted bail by this Court, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners by imposing conditions:

[6] Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Periyakulam, Theni 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 respondent Police or to the Police Officer, who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that: [a] if the petitioner fails to surrender before the concerned Magistrate within a period of 15 days, this order shall stand automatically cancelled.

[b] the petitioner shall stay at Karur and report before the

Karur Town Police Station, daily at 10.30 a.m for a period of three weeks and thereafter, as and when required for the 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 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]. [f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.

sd/- 18/07/2019 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S. ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1 JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE PERIYAKULAM THENI 2 DO-THROUGH :

THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THENI DISTRICT.

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE THENKARAI POLICE STATION PERIYAKULAM THENI DISTRICT.

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

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.9922 of 2019 Date :18/07/2019 KM/JC/SAR-III (02.08.2019) 3P 5C