Jeyakumar v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 10/10/2022 PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice A.A.NAKKIRAN
1. Jeyakumar,
2. Kalraj,
3. Dharmaraj,
4. Thangamani,
5. Chithra,
6. Ramalakshmi, ... Petitioners/Accused Rank Not known Vs 1.
State Rep.by The Inspector of Police, Dhalavaipuram Police Station, Virudhunagar District.
Crime No.129 of 2022.
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT (*)2.
Thangamani, ...2nd RESPONDENT (R2 is deleted vide order dated 10.10.2022 in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14825 of 2022) For Petitioner : MR.G.Thalaimutharasu,Advocate. For Respondent : Mr.M.Muthumanikkam, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.129 of 2022 on the file of the Respondent Police.
ORDER : The Court made the following order :- 1/3
The petitioners/A1 to A6, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 448, 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(ii) IPC and Section 4 of TNPHW Act in Crime No.129 of 2022, seek anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that on 06.08.2022, when the de-facto complainant was standing near his house, the petitioners came there, scolded him in filthy language, attacked him with cable wire and caused simple injury. Hence the complaint. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that due to previous enmity, a false case was foisted against the petitioners and the petitioners are innocents and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that a counter case in Crime No.
130 of 2022 is pending against the defacto complainant and others. 4.The learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) would submit that the de-facto complainant is having illegal intimacy with the fourth petitioner, due to which, a wordy quarrel arose between the family members of both parties and subsequently, the said occurrence had taken place. He would further submit that the injured was discharged from the hospital and no previous case is pending against the petitioners. However, he strongly opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners as the investigation is not yet completed. 5.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the injured was already discharged from the hospital and also the fact that the counter case is pending against the de-facto complainant, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions. 6.Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of their arrest or their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rajapalayam, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.
(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 am until further orders.
(c)the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;
2/3
(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 thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229-A IPC.
7.It is seen that the fourth petitioner herein has wrongly been suo-motu impleaded as the second respondent in this petition. Therefore, the second respondent is deleted from the array of parties. Registry is directed to delete the second respondent in the cause title before issuing the order copy. sd/- 10/10/2022 / TRUE COPY / /10/2022 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, RAJAPALAYAM.
2 DO-THROUGH :
THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, VIRUTHUNAGAR DISTRICT AT SRIVILLIPUTHUR 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DHALAVAIPURAM POLICE STATION, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT.
THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
+1 CC to M/s.G.THALAIMUTHARASU, Advocate (SR-11283[I] dated 12/10/2022 )
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.14825 of 2022 Date :10/10/2022 sji PKP/GB/SAR /27.10.2022/3P/6C 3/3