BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Eleventh day of November Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice S. TAMILVANAN CRL OP(MD) No.13785 of 2011 1 SENTHIL 2 KUMARESAN 3 MUTHULAKSHMI 4 PANDISELVI ... PETITIONERS / ACCUSED 1 TO 4 Vs STATE REP BY:: THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DEVAKKOTTAI TK, POLICE STATION, CR NO.449/2011, SIVAGANGAI DT ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. A.ARUNPRASAD Advocate For Respondent : MR. A.P. BALASUBRAMANI, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE (CRL SIDE) 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 Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent. 2. The petitioners, who are arrayed as A1 to A4 facing charges for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 294(b) and 506(ii) IPC., in Crime No. 449 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police apprehending arrest, 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 petitioners are innocent persons. Even as per the complaint given by the de facto complainant, it has been made clear that no one was injured. It was only a wordy quarrel between the petitioners and the de facto complainant and there is no bad antecedents against the petitioners. However, in view of the complaint registered against the petitioners, the respondent is trying to arrest the petitioners based on the aforesaid averments. On that ground learned counsel appearing for the petitioners requests this Court to grant anticipatory bail in favour of the petitioners. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent has not disputed the fact that there is no bad antecedents against the petitioners. Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) admits that there was only a wordy quarrel between the petitioners and he de facto complainant. As per the complaint, the petitioners said to have threatened the de facto complainant with dire consequences, based on which, the case was registered and no one was injured in the alleged occurrence. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that no one was injured in the alleged occurrence and there is no bad antecedents against the petitioners, I find it just a 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, Devakkottai, Sivasgangai 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 No. 1 and 2 shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m, until further orders and the petitioners No. 3 and 4 being women accused shall appear before the respondents police as and when required for interrogation. 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, this petition for anticipatory bail shall stands dismissed. sd/- 11/11/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1 THE ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. 2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,DEVAKKOTTAI TALUK POLICE STATION, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT. 3 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DEVAKOTTAI 4 DO THRO' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, SIVAGANGAI 1. CC to M/S. A.ARUNPRASAD Advocate SR.No.39192: DM::2011:NOVEMBER:17:: ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.13785 of 2011 2p:6c:: Date :11/11/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/