BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Twenty Third day of August Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE S.PALANIVELU CRL OP(MD) No.10949 of 2011 1 MALIK BATCHA 2 PRABU ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 6 & 7 Vs STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE AVANIYAPURAM POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT. CRIME NO.339 OF 2011 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT FOR PETITIONER : M/S.GOPALAKRISHNA LAKSHAXAMARAJA 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/accused Nos.6&7 apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 147,148,294(b),323,406, 506(ii) and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Women Harassment Act in Crime No.339 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence, they seek anticipatory bail. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that even though the petitioners are stated to have been available with the first accused and they were stated to have been possessing lethal weapons such as aruval, knife and wooden log, it is not specifically stated in the First Information Report that which person was holding which weapon with which they committed the offence. In fact, it is a civil dispute which is being transformed into criminal case which will be elucidated in the First Information Report. Whatever may be the grievance of the defacto compliant, he has to seek his remedy before the Civil Court and that the First Information Report would also show that both the complainant and his wife had gone to the first accused house and demanded to hand over the possession of the house. Therefore, there is no question of attacking the defacto complainant by the petitioners. If the petitioners are granted anticipatory bail, there may not be any possibility to hamper the witnesses and in fact, there was no injury sustained by the defacto complainant. 3. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) strongly opposes for granting of anticipatory bail to the petitioners on the ground that the investigation is pending and the petitioners may hamper the witnesses in case anticipatory bail is granted and hence, he prays for the dismissal of this application. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the defacto complainant has not sustained https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ any injury, 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 their arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V1, Madurai and each of them shall 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 Judicial Magistrate No.V1, Madurai and on further condition that the petitioners shall report before the Court concerned daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders. The petitioners shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C scrupulously. 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, anticipatory bail petition stands dismissed. sd/- 23/08/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.VI, MADURAI. 2 DO-THRO' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MADURAI. 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, AVANIYAPURAM POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT. 4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1. CC TO M/S. R.VENKATESWARAN ADVOCATE SR.NO.28612. ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.10949 of 2011 Date :23/08/2011 2P/6C RPB 25.08.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/