BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Twenty Ninth day of November Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH CRL OP(MD) No.15416 of 2011 1. K.CHELLADURAI 2. C.SENTHIL KUMAR 3. M.SENTHIL KUMAR 4. P.N.THIRUMURUGAN : PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 4 G.ANNADURAI : INTERVENOR Vs. THE STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE VILAKKUTHOON POLICE STATION, MADURAI. CRIME NO.1352 OF 2011 : RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. R.KARTHIKEYAN Advocate For Respondent : Mr. K.S.DURAIPANDIAN Additional Public Prosecutor For Intervenor : M/S. J.PADMAVATHI DEVEI Advocate PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners are arrayed as A1 to A4 and they prayed for grant of anticipatory bail under section 438 Cr.P.C., for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 147, 427, 451 and 506(ii) I.P.C. In Crime No.1352 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail. 2.Heard Mr.R.Karthikeyan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Ms.J.Padmavathi Devi, learned counsel for the intervenor and Mr.K.S.Duraipandian, learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Criminal side) appearing for the State. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit in his argument that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence and they have been falsely implicated in this case having the civil dispute in mind. He would further submit in his argument that the civil cases are pending in between the parties in O.S.No.394 of 2011 on the file of the learned District Munsif Court, Madurai Town and yet another suit filed by the de-facto complainant viz., Annadurai in O.S.No.746 of 2011 on the file of the same Court. He would further submit in his argument that both the suits are pending in respect of their civil rights over the said property and this case has been falsely filed by the de-facto complainant in order to take vengeance against the petitioners and hence, he prays for anticipatory bail in favour of the petitioners. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4.The learned counsel appearing for the intervenor would submit in her argument that the property belonging to the de-facto complainant has been admitted by the petitioners and they have caused damage for more than Rs.30,000/- despite the pendency of the civil suits. He would further submit in her argument that the damages caused to the common pillars, common wall, water pipe connection, bath room and toilet with the help of crow bar, aruval and spade and the first petitioner had also instructed the other accused to cause the death of the de-facto complainant and it is a serious matter and therefore, the petitioners may not be granted anticipatory bail. 5.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Criminal side) would submit in his argument that the investigation is pending and there are two civil suits pending in between the parties and if for any reason, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners stringent condition may be imposed against him for the secured presence of the accused. 6.I have given anxious consideration to the argument advanced on either side. 7.According to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that they have not committed any offence much less stated in the complaint and there are two civil suits pending in between the parties. According to the submission of the learned counsel for the intervenor that the property belonging to the de-facto complainant also consisting of common pillars, common wall, water pipe connection, bath room and toilet, were demolished by the petitioners with the help of crow bar, aruval and spade. If the allegation is true, it is a serious matter, but however, investigation is pending and nobody has been injured in the incident. In the said circumstances, I could see a prima facie case for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners on condition that the petitioners shall deposit a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) each to the credit of Crime No.1352 of 2011 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai and on receipt of the same, the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai and 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 Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the petitioners shall report before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation. The petitioners shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously. The said amount shall not be released without the order of this Court. 8. The petitioners shall appear before the Magistrate concerned within a period of 15 days, failing which, the anticipatory bail granted shall stand automatically cancelled. sd/- 29/11/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ TO 1. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.1, MADURAI. 2. -DO- THRO' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MADURAI DISTRICT. 3. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. 4. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VILAKKUTHOON POLICE STATION, MADURAI. +1 CC to M/S. R.KARTHIKEYAN Advocate SR.No.42011 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.15416 of 2011 Date :29/11/2011 NSV/2.12.11/3P/6C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/