1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Eighth day of November Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice S. TAMILVANAN CRL OP(MD) No.13950 of 2011 1.PATTURAMASUNDARAM 2.P. NANDAGOPAL 3.N. ANANDAKRISHNAN 4.M. RAJAVINAYAGAM 5.S. SIVA 6.P. MUTHUMAL 7.A. MADASAMY ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 4 & 6 TO 8 D.KANNAN ... INTERVENOR Vs STATE THROUGH THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE KURUMBUR POLICE STATION, TUTICORIN DISTRICT, CRIME NO.192/2011. ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. A.P.MUTHU PANDIAN Advocate For Respondent : MR. K.S.DURAI PANDIAN, Additional Public Prosecutor For Intervenor : M/S. JEYAPAUL ASSOCIATES, Advocate PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor (criminal side) appearing for the first respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/de-facto complainant. 2.The petitioners, who are arrayed as A1 to A4 and A6 to A8 facing charges for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 294 (b), 323, 324, 506(ii) and 379 IPC in Crime NO.192 of 2011, on the file of the respondent police, have come forward with this application seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the first petitioner was contesting for the post of President of Veeramanickam https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 Panchayat and other petitioners submits that the first petitioner was contesting for the post of President of Veeramanickam Panchayat and other petitioners supported the first petitioner in the election and on 17.10.2011, the Panchayat Election was held and the second respondent/de- facto complainant was also a candidate contesting for membership in the Panchayat Election. 4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor(Crl.side) appearing for the respondent has not disputed the fact that the de-facto complainant and the petitioners 1 and 2 were independent candidates. The occurrence took place on 18.10.2011 and all the injured persons were discharged from the hospital since the injuries sustained by both the parties were simple in nature. He further submits that there is no bad antecedents against the petitioners. 5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the injured had already been discharged from the hospital and there is no bad antecedents against the petitioners and I find it just and reasonable to grant 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, Srivaikundam, Tuticorin District and each of them executing a personal 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 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 shall stands dismissed. sd/- 08/11/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, SRIVAIKUNDAM, TUTICORIN DISTRICT 2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE TUTICORIN 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE KURUMBUR POLICE STATION, TUTICORIN DISTRICT 4 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1. CC to M/S. A.P.MUTHU PANDIAN Advocate SR.No.38360 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.13950 of 2011 Date :08/11/2011 TR :11.11.2011: 3p/6c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/