1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Thirtieth day of September Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice R.MALA CRL OP(MD) No.13037 of 2011 1 THIRUPATHI 2 SANKARALINGAM ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 5 & 8 Vs THE STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE TALUK POLICE STATION, SANKARANKOVIL, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT. CR NO. 164/2011 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. G.THALAIMUTHARASU Advocate For Respondent : Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners/A5 and A8 apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 147, 294(b), 353 and 506(ii) I.P.C., in Crime No.164 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence seek anticipatory bail. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the alleged occurrence has been taken place on 19.09.2011 and on the basis of the complaint given by one Muthusamy, Special Sub Inspector of Police, a case has been registered in crime No.164 of 2011 by the respondent police for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 294(b), 353 and 506(ii) I.P.C. and the petitioners herein were arrayed as A5 and A8. He would further submit that A1 and A6 were arrested and other accused are yet to be arrested and the investigation is considerably over and since the petitioners apprehend for arrest, they have come forward with the present application for anticipatory bail. 3. Repudiating the same, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that a case has been registered for the offence under Sections 147, 294(b), 353 and 506(ii) I.P.C. on 19.09.2011 based on the complaint given by the defacto complainant alleging that on 19.09.2011, when the defacto complainant along with Head Constable were on patrol duty, the defacto complainant found that the petitioners and others were https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 standing in the railway track between Sankarankovil- Karivalamvandhanallur and on seeing the police, they ran away and immediately, the police chased them and caught one of them viz., Muthupandi and thereafter, the other accused threatened the defacto complainant to release him otherwise they will kill him by pelting stones and when the police tried to catch the accused, they ran away from there and escaped. He would further submit that when they made enquiry with the captured person Muthupandi, he informed him that they were assembled to do some unlawful action and then only, the case has been registered against the petitioners and others. He would further submit that the case has been registered against A1 to A8 and A1 and A6 were arrested and the other accused are yet to be arrested and the investigation is also in initial stage and hence, he prayed for the dismissal of the application. 4.I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. 5. The alleged occurrence has been taken place on 19.09.2011 and the case has been registered against A1 to A8 for the offence under Sections 147, 294(b), 353 and 506(ii) I.P.C. Even though, it was the case of the prosecution that the petitioners were formed an unlawful assembly and on seeing the police party, the petitioners and others ran away from the place on occurrence and when they caught hold of one Muthupandi, the petitioners and others threatened the defacto complainant to release him and they prevented him to discharge his official duty. Perusal of the records would reveal that the occurrence has been taken place on 19.09.2011 and the investigation is going on. Even though A1 and A6 were arrested and others are yet to be arrested and even though the petitioners were not arrested and neither they interfered with the investigation nor absconded from the jurisdiction. 6. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions. Accordingly, the petitioners/A5 and A8 are ordered to be released on bail in the event of their arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sankarankovil and on executing a separate https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 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 learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the petitioners shall report before the Court concerned daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders. The petitioners shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously. 7. 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/- 30/09/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, SANKARANKOVIL. 2 DO-THRO' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, TIRUNELVELI. 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TALUK POLICE STATION, SANKARANKOVIL, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT. 4 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.13037 of 2011 Date :30/09/2011 PA/10.10.2011/3P/5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/