BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Seventeenth day of November Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH CRL OP(MD) No.14950 of 2011 1 K. MOOSAL KALIN 2 M. MUSTHABHA JABAR ALI 3 BISHMI KAJA 4 K.S. SHAGUL HAMEED 5 HYDER ALI 6 P.M.K. BASHEER MOHAMED LEPPAI ..PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 5 Vs STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE MELAPALAYAM POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT. CRIME NO.681/2011 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT FOR PETITIONER : M/S.S.M.A.JINNAH ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT : MR.K.S.DURAIPANDIAN GOVT. ADVOCATE ( CRL. SIDE) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL UNDER SEC. 438 CR.P.C. ORDER : THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING ORDER :- Apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police, the petitioners/A.1 to A.5 in Crime No.681/2011 on the file of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 147, 323, 342, 363, 387 and 506(i) of I.P.C., have come forward with this petition seeking anticipatory bail. 2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 3.According to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the de facto complainant was taken by force and an undertaking was obtained by the petitioners for a sum of Rs.20,000/- and executed a promissory note and thereafter the petitioners are said to have attacked the de facto complainant, when he asked for the promissory note and threatened the de facto complainant. 4.The learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that on an earlier occasion, this Court has granted anticipatory bail to A-7 and A-8, who are also standing in the same footing and therefore the present petitioners may also be considered for the grant of anticipatory bail on the similar lines. 5.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit in his argument that there is no previous case for the petitioners and if or any reason, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail, suitable conditions may be imposed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6.I have considered the submissions made by both sides. I could see that the footing of the present petitioners is similar to that of the accused 7 & 8, on whom this Court has already granted anticipatory bail on 02.11.2011 in Crl.O.P.No.14050 of 2011. Under the said circumstances, I have no hesitation to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with the similar conditions imposed by this Court in the said petition. 7.Accordingly, the petitioners shall be released on bail, in the event of their arrest or on their appearance before the concerned Judicial Magistrate and on each executing a bond for Rs.10,000/-[Rupees Ten Thousand only] together with two sureties to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Tirunelveli and on further condition that the petitioners shall appear before the respondent police every day at 10.30. a.m. for a period of four weeks. The petitioners shall appear before the concerned Magistrate within a period of 15 days, failing which, the anticipatory bail granted shall stand automatically cancelled. sd/- 17/11/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.V, TIRUNELVELI. 2 DO-THRO' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, TIRUNELVELI. 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MELAPALAYAM POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI. 4 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.14950 of 2011 Date :17/11/2011 2P/5C RPB : 21.11.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/