1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT (Criminal Jurisdiction) Wednesday, the Twenty Eighth day of December Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice S. RAJESWARAN CRL OP(MD) No.17295 of 2011 1 SUSMITHAPRIYA 2 NAGAJOTHI 3 MURUGANANTHAM :PETITIONERS / ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3 -Vs- THE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, OTHAKKADAI POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT. CRIME NO.596/2011. :RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : MR.V.KATHIRVELU Senior Counsel for M/S. S.RAGAVENTHRE, Advocate For Respondent : MR.C.RAMESH, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners are arrayed as A1 to A3 in Crime No.596 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police for offence under Sections 307, 507 IPC read with Section 5 read with 25(i)(a) of Arms Act. Apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police, they have come up with this petition seeking anticipatory bail. 2.Heard Mr.V.Kathirvelu, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners representing Ms.S.Ragavanthre and Mr.C.Ramesh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent State. 3.The learned Senior counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are A1 to A3 and the first petitioner has given a complaint against the de-facto complainant and two others while she was returning from the Mediation Centre attached to this Bench, the de-facto complainant and two others waylaid her and snatched the gold chain worth about Rs.4,50,000/- and therefore, a case has been registered in Crime No.589 of 2011. The de-facto complainant and two others filed a petition for anticipatory bail before this Court and at the intervention of these petitioners, they have withdrawn their petition for anticipatory bail. Therefore, he would submit that it is a case of case in counter and there is oral allegations against these petitioners and in the said complaint, nothing has been mentioned. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit in his argument that this is a case of case in counter. 5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that it is a case of case in counter and there is oral allegations against these petitioners and in the said complaint, nothing has been mentioned by the de-facto complainant, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with stringent conditions. 6.Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Melur, 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 third petitioner shall appear before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate No.XVI, Saidapet, Chennai, every day at 10.30 a.m. until further orders. The petitioners 1 and 3 shall report before the respondent police as and when required for the purpose of interrogation. The petitioners shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously. 7.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/- 28/12/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO: 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Melur, Madurai District. 2.-Do- Thro' The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai. 3.The Metropolitan Magistrate No.XVI, Saidapet, Chennai. 4.-Do- Thro' The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai. 5.The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 6.The Inspector of Police, Othakkadai Police Station, Madurai District. +1. CC to M/S. S.RAGAVENTHRE Advocate SR.No.46132. RP/29.12.2011/2P/8C. ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.17295/11 Date :28/12/2011. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/