1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Twenty Sixth day of July Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice R.MALA CRL OP(MD) No.9071 of 2011 1.G. GUNASEKARAN 2.G. CHANDRASEKAR 3.C. VIJAYA CHANDIRIKA 4.G. ALAGAMMAL ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 4 Vs STATE THROUGH BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE BATLAGUNDU POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL DISTRICT, CRIME NO.324/2011 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. M. SUBASH BABU 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 147, 148, 448, 427, 341, 336, 324, 379(N.P) and 506(ii) I.P.C., in Crime No.324 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 innocent persons and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that the injured has already been discharged from the hospital and the investigation is considerably over and hence, he prays for enlargement on anticipatory bail. 3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that due to communal clash between the two community people, the occurrence has been taken place. He would further submit that the investigation is going on and the injured person has already been discharged from the hospital and hence, he prays for dismissal of this application. 4. Considering the rival submissions made by both sides and also considering the fact that the first petitioner's grandmother died and her funeral provision has been taken and at that time, since there was an https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 obstruction by the complainant, a wordy quarrel arose between them, which resulted in registering a counter case in Crime No.325 of 2011 under Sections 3(1)(x) of SC/ST(POA) Act against 101 persons and even though the petitioners were not arrested, neither they interfere with the investigation nor abscond from the jurisdiction, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, with certain conditions. 5. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nilakottai, and on executing a separate 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 evening at 05.30 p.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/- 26/07/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, NILAKOTTAI 2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DINDIGUL 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, BATLAGUNDU POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL DISTRICT 4 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1. CC to M/S. M. SUBASH BABU Advocate SR.No.24552 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.9071 of 2011 Date :26/07/2011 TR : 27.07.2011: 2p/6c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/