BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Fourteenth day of September Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice R.MALA CRL OP(MD) No.11682 of 2011 1 ESAKKIAPPAN 2 RAVI ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 2 & 3 Vs THE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE PAZHAVOOR POLICE STATION TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT CR.NO.189/2011 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT FOR PETITIONER : M/S.G.THALAIMUTHUARASU ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT : MR.A.RAMAR ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL UNDER SEC. 438 CR.P.C. ORDER : THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING ORDER :- The petitioners apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 148, 294(b), 506 (ii) 379(NP) of IPC and Section 3 of TNPPDL Act, in Crime No.189 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 petitioners are arrayed as an accused Nos.2 and 3. The alleged occurrence has been taken place on 13.08.2011 and the case has been registered on 28.08.2011. He further submitted that the defacto complainant has filed a suit in O.S.No.51 of 2010 on the file of the District Munsif, Valliyur in that the defacto complainant has filed an application for injunction which was dismissed on 30.04.2010. The said civil suit is pending. Because of that previous enmity, this case has been foisted against the petitioners, they are in possession and they are not caused damage to the property. The petitioners are innocent persons and hence, he prays for enlargement on anticipatory bail. 3.Refuting the same, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that on the date of occurrence the accused demolished the house of the defacto complainant by JCP machine and caused damage worth about Rs.1,25,000/-. He further submits that the petitioners are assisted A1 for the commission of the offence and the investigation is going on and hence, he prays for dismissal of this application. 4.Considering the rival submissions made by both sides and also considering the fact that in respect of property in dispute there was a case in O.S.No.51 of 2010 on the file of the District Munsif, Valliyur in that the defacto complainant has filed an application for injunction which was dismissed. The complaint has been given on 28.08.2011 but the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ occurrence has alleged to have been taken place on 13.08.2011. Even though the value of the property is worth about Rs.1,25,000/-, since civil suit is pending and there is a delay in registering the case, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, with certain conditions. 5.Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of their arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Valliyur and on each of them execute a 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 petitioner 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/- 14/09/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, VALLIYUR. 2 DO-THRO' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, TIRUNELVELI. 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE PAZHAVOOR POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT. 4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1 CC TO M/S. G.THALAIMUTHUARASU, ADVOCATE SR.NO.31815. ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.11682 of 2011 Date :14/09/2011 2P/6C RPB 19.09.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/