Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/18978/2015disposed of

Boominathan v. The Inspector Of Police

2015-10-01Honourable Mr Justice K. Kalyanasundaram2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the First day of October Two Thousand Fifteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice K.KALYANASUNDARAM CRL OP(MD) No.18978 of 2015 1 BOOMINATHAN 2 MUTHURAMALINGAM 3 SONAIMUTHU 4 SOMASUNDARAM ..PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 5 to 8 Vs.

STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE PARTHIBANOOR POLICE STATION, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT.

(CRIME NO. 120 OF 2015) ..RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S D.SENTHIL Advocate For Respondent : M/s.S.PRABHA, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners, who are arrayed as A5 to A8 apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 306 and 201 I.P.C in Crime NO.120/2015 and hence, seek anticipatory bail.

2.According to the defacto complainant namely, Elangeshwari that there is a civil dispute existing between the accused and her husband and on 23.09.2015, when the defacto complainant was constructing a house, a wordy quarrel arose between them and the accused No.1 to 4 attacked the husband of the defacto complainant and also abused him in filthy language and therefore on 23.9.2015 he committed suicide by hanging.

3.The learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that A2 is the son of the first accused and A3 and A4 are the relatives of the accused 1 and 2. Even according to the defacto complainant there was a civil dispute between the accused 1 and 2 and the defacto complainant and as per the allegation, the petitioners have participated in the funeral ceremony of the husband of the defacto complainant and the Petitioners know about the suicide committed by the husband of the deceased. 4.The learned Government Advocate(Crl.side) would submit that the occurrence had taken place only on 23.09.2015, the case was registered on 25.09.2015 and the accused 1 to 4 have been secured on the same day. It is further contended that investigation is at initial stage and therefore the Petitioners are not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the overt-act attributed against these Petitioners, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Paramakudi and on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction to the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the first petitioner shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10.30 A.M. Until further orders. The petitioners shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Scrupulously.

6. The petitioners 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 stands dismissed. sd/- 01/10/2015 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, PARAMAKUDI, RAMNAD DISTRICT. 2 -do-thro'THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,RAMNAD. 3 THE ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT,MADURAI. 4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PARTHIBANOOR POLICE STATION, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT.

+1. CC to M/S D.SENTHIL Advocate SR.No.58168 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.18978 of 2015 Date :01/10/2015 PBK/AMF/SAR-II 05/10/2015 ::2P-6C::

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/