BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Twenty Ninth day of September Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice R.MALA CRL OP(MD) No.12943 of 2011 1 MUTHUSAMY 2 RAMALINGAM 3 PALANI 4 THANGARASU 5 SATHISH 6 MURUGAN 7. MURUGESAN 8.PALANICHAMY 9.ADAIKALAM 10.ARJUNAN 11.KUMAR, S/O.ARUMUGAM 12.RAJESH 13.ANDISAMY 14.ARULPANDI 15.VELU @ ALAGAR 16.KUMAR S/O.PALANISAMY 17.GANESAN 18.SURESH 19.KARUPPIAH 20.SOLAI ... PETITIONERS / ACCUSED Vs STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE NATHAM POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL DISTRICT. ( IN CR.NO.397 OF 2011 ) ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. R.VENKATESWARAN Advocate For Respondent : M/S. 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 147, 148, 324, 436, 307, 427, 452 IPC and 3(1) of Tamil Nadu Public Property (prevention of Loss and Damage) Act, in Crime No.397 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence seek anticipatory bail. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners were charged under Sections 147, 148, 324, 436, 307, 427, 452 IPC and 3(1) of Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Loss and Damage) Act. He further submitted that the injured has already been discharged from the hospital and there is a case and case in counter and the petitioners are innocent persons and they have been falsely implicated in this case and hence, he prays for enlargement on anticipatory bail. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. Refuting the same, the learned Additional Public prosecutor would submit that the occurrence has been taken place on 02.07.2011 because of the dispute in respect of playing Kabadi between two villagers and the injured has already been discharged from the hospital and there is a case and case in counter and the investigation is going on and hence, he prays for dismissal of this application. 4. Considering the rival submissions made by both sides and also considering the fact that the alleged occurrence has been taken place on 02.07.2011 because of the dispute in respect of playing Kabadi and there is a case and case in counter and even though the injured has already been discharged from the hospital and the investigation is considerably over and the seven other co-accused were already arrested and enlarged on bail, neither they interfered with the investigation nor absconded from the jurisdiction, 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, Natham and on executing a separate 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 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. 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, the petition for anticipatory bail stands dismissed. sd/- 29/09/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, NATHAM 2 -DO-THRO' THE CHIEF JUDICAL MAGISTRATE, DINDIGUL 3 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI 4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE NATHAM POLICE STATION,DINDIGUL DISTRICT. +1. CC to M/S. R.VENKATESWARAN Advocate SR.No.34126 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.12943 of 2011 Date :29/09/2011 SMA/30.9.2011/6C/2P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/