BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Twenty First day of December Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH CRL OP(MD) No.16754 of 2011 1 V.PANDI 2 GANESAN 3 R.CHELLAPPA ... PETITIONERS / ACCUSED 1 to 3 Vs STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE D-1, THALLAKULAM POLICE STATION, MADURAI CITY, MADURAI IN CR.NO. 1951 OF 2011 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. R.ARUMUGAM Advocate For Respondent : M/S.K.S.DURAIPANDIAN Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners are the accused in Crime No.1951 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police, for offence under Sections 3(1), 4(1), 5(1), 6(1)(a)(b), 7(1) of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act- 1956. The petitioners were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 22.11.2011. They have come forward with this petition seeking bail. 2. Heard Mr.R.Arumugam, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.K.S.Duraipandian, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this petition in respect of the first petitioner and he has also made an endorsement to that effect. 4. In view of the above, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed as withdrawn in respect of the first petitioner herein. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would deny the allegations made against the petitioners 2 and 3. He would further submit that they have been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that the petitioners 2 and 3 are ready to abide by any conditions likely to be imposed by this Court in the event of granting bail to them. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would oppose the grant of bail to the petitioners 2 and 3. He would further submit that if for any reason the petitioners are released on bail, suitable conditions may be imposed. 7. I have considered the above submissions. 8. Considering the submissions made by both sides, I could see that the petitioners 2 and 3 are sufficiently aged persons and they have been in judicial custody from 22.11.2011. Considering the above said facts, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioners 2 and 3, but with stringent conditions. 9. In the result, this petition is ordered and bail is granted to the petitioners 2 and 3 on the following conditions: - (i) The Petitioners 2 and 3 shall be enlarged on bail on each of them executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with two sureties each for a likesum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai; and (ii) the second petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders and the third petitioner shall stay at Kanchipuram and appear before the Chinna Kanchi Police station daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders. sd/- 21/12/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.II MADURAI 2 -DO-THRO' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE MADURAI 3 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI 4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE D-1, THALLAKULAM POLICE STATION, MADURAI CITY, MADURAI 5 THE SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL PRISON, MADURAI +2. CC's to M/S. B.VINOTH KUMAR, Advocate SR.No.44867 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.16754 of 2011 Date :21/12/2011 SMA/22.12.2011/8C/2P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/