BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Twelfth day of December Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH CRL OP(MD) No.15348 of 2011 SURESH BABU @ POTTU SURESH : PETITIONER/ACCUSED-1 Vs. THE STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ELUMALAI POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT. CRIME NO.204/2011 : RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. N.R.ELANGO Senior Counsel for Mr.S.RAVI Advocate For Respondent : Mr. K.S.DURAIPANDIAN Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner/Accused 1 apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 109 r/w 294(b) and 506(i) of IPC, in Crime Number 204 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seeks anticipatory bail. 2. Heard Mr.N.R.Elango, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 3. The learned Senior counsel would submit in his argument that the petitioner is said to have involved in the offence under Sections 109, 342, 323, 324, 365, 506(ii) of I.P.C and 307 of I.P.C along with five persons and after investigation, the case was altered into the provisions of Section 109, 294(b) and 506(i) of I.P.C and final report was filed against the petitioner and two others. He would further submit that the petitioner was detained under Goondas Act and therefore, he could not appear before the said Court and the learned Judicial Magistrate has also passed an order of non-bailable warrant. He would further submit that since the non-bailable warrant cannot be executed, it was withdrawn and PT warrant was sought for for the production of the petitioner for remand, after effecting a formal arrest and the same was not accepted by the learned Magistrate and the State has taken a revision against the said order. He would further submit that the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Usilampatti, after rejecting the remand, had also not issued any non bailable warrant afresh and the petitioner apprehends arrest at any time. He would further submit that other co-accused have already been granted bail and the petitioner is also complying with the conditions in other cases, after bail were granted to him. He would further https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ submit that he would not abscond from the clutches of law, since he would abide the conditions already imposed against him. Hence, the petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail. 4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit in his argument that the State has filed a revision against the order of rejection of remand by the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Usilampatti and the same has been numbered in Crl.R.C.No.15140 and it is pending. He would further submit that the petitioner is having previous cases, But in all the other cases, he was released on bail and he is complying with the conditions. He would further submit that if for any reason, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, stringent conditions may be imposed for his secured presence. 5. Considering the submissions made by both sides, the question of deciding the criminal revision filed by the State is depending upon the final judgment of the Honourable Apex Court, which stayed the order of the Honourable Division Bench of this Court, which passed on the order regarding the remand sought for before the learned Magistrate, after 24 hours of formal arrest. Therefore the criminal revision cannot be clubbed with this case. Asfar as this case is concerned, the petitioner is seeking for anticipatory bail in respect of an offence under Section 109, 294(b) and 506(i) of I.P.C. The petitioner has got previous cases. But in all other cases, he was released on bail and he is complying with the conditions. In one case, he is appearing before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai on every day in the morning at 10.30 a.m. 6. Considering the less gravity of the case which was altered from 307 of I.P.C to 506(i) of I.P.C, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with the following conditions: i) Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of his arrest or on his appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, No.I, Usilampatti and on 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, ii) that the petitioner shall appear before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai daily in the morning i.e at 10.30 a.m until further orders. iii) The petitioner shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously. iv) The petitioner 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/- 12/12/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ TO 1. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.1, USILAMPATTI. 2. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.1, MADURAI. 3. -DO- THRO' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MADURAI DISTRICT. 4. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. 5. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ELUMALAI POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT. +1 CC to M/S. S.RAVI Advocate SR.No.43322 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.15348 of 2011 Date :12/12/2011 NSV/13.12.11/3P/7C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/