BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Twenty Sixth day of September Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice S.PALANIVELU CRL OP(MD) No.12735 of 2011 1 GURUSAMY 2 M.RATHINAM 3 S.MAHENDRAN 4 S.SOLLAMUTHU @ CHELLAPPAN ..PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 4 Vs STATE REP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE SENTHAMARAM POLICE STATION, THIRUNELVELI DISTRICT IN CRIME NO. 288 OF 2010 ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. T.LAJAPATHI ROY Advocate For Respondent :Mr.A.RAMAR Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) 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 306 of I.P.C. in Criem No.288 of 2010 on the file of the respondent police and hence seek anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Mariappan eloped with one girl by name Muthulakshmi and hence the father of the Mariappan abused the deceased. In the F.I.R. registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C., it is stated so and hence Mariappan committed suicide by hanging. But after 9 months, an alteration report has been filed under Section 306 I.P.C. stating that the petitioners who are the panchayathars scolded him and imposed a fine of Rs.10,000/- and told the deceased to die and hence, the deceased committed suicide. 3.The learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the complainant being the father of the deceased should have known the earlier events in which there was a panchayat and a fine of Rs.10,000/- was imposed and apart, he did not mention the same in his First Information Report and hence, there is no nexus between the death of the deceased and the petitioners. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the investigation is pending and hecne, he prays for dismissal of this application. 5.Considering the rival submissions made by both sides and also considering the fact that the case was registered on 15.12.2010 itself and hence major portion of the investigation could have been over and even though the petitioners were not arrested, neither they interfered with the investigation nor absconded from the jurisdiction, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thenkasi and on each of them executing 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 Judicial 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. 5.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/- 26/09/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1.THE JUDICIA MAGISTRATE , TENKASI 2.DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT 3.THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI 4.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE SENTHAMARAM POLICE STATION, THIRUNELVELI DISTRICT +1. CC to M/S. T.LAJAPATHI ROY Advocate SR.No.33313 rl/6c – 29.9.2011 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.12735 of 2011 Date :26/09/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/