Prakash v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 15/11/2023 PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice V. SIVAGNANAM

1. Prakash,

2. Vasantha,

3. Sivalingam @ Sivanantham,

4. Ganesan, ... Petitioners/Accused Nos 1 to 4 Vs State Rep.by The Inspector of Police, Musiri Police Station, Musiri, Trichy District Crime No. 442 of 2023.

... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : K Arunraj, Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.RMS.Sethuraman, Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No. 442 of 2023 on the file of the respondent Police.

1/6

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners / accused, who apprehend at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections (*) 147, 294(b), 323, 506(ii) IPC and r/w. Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 in Crime No.442 of 2023 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that due to the wordy quarrel, the petitioners herein have attacked the defacto complainant and also threatened him with dire consequences. Hence, the case.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and their names have been falsely implicated in this case and hence he seeks anticipatory to the petitioners.

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent submitted that the injured was discharged from the hospital and it is a case and counter. He would further submit that the investigation of the case is pending. 2/6

5. On perusal of the FIR, it is noticed that there was a wordy quarrel between the parties.

6. Taking into consideration the principles stated by the Honourable Supreme Court in Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia Etc., vs. State of Punjab reported in 1980 AIR 1632 and Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2009)4 SCC 437 and Joginder Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others reported in (1994) 4 SCC 260 and taking into consideration the origin of crime, it is seen that the offence alleged as against the petitioners is not a case of heinous crime. Further the petitioners is having permanent residents at Trichy District. Hence the principles stated in Hussainara Khatoon & Ors vs. Home Secretary, State Of Bihar reported in AIR 1979 SC 1360 is taken into consideration.

In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has cautioned that pre-trial detention is not be encouraged nor is to be encourageable pre-trial release on sureties; that if the Court is satisfied after taking into consideration that the accused has his roots in the community and is not likely to abscond, he can safely be released on his personal bond. 7.

petitioners. 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, Musiri on condition that the petitioners shall execute own bonds for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) 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 shall appear before the trial Court on receipt of summons as directed by the trial Court.

[b] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

[c] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial. [d] 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 4/6

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]. [e] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.

sd/- 15/11/2023 (*)Amended as per order of this Hon'ble Court in CRL MP(MD).17282/2023 IN CRL OP(MD).

20396/2023 dated 11.12.2023 / TRUE COPY / /11/2023 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TRP TO TO BE SUBSTITUTED WITH THE ORDER ALREADY DESPATCHED ON 15.11.2023 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MUSIRI DO THROUGH:

THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, TRICHY DISTRICT.

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE MUSIRI POLICE STATION, MUSIRI, TRICHY DISTRICT 5/6

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

+1 CC to M/s.K.ARUNRAJ, Advocate ( SR-17567[I] dated 11/12/2023 )

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.20396 of 2023 Date :15/11/2023 PKP/JGB/SAR- /23.11.2023/ 6P/ 6C DSS PKP/DD/SAR- /22.12.2023/ 6P/ 6C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 6/6