BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the First day of November Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice S.NAGAMUTHU CRL OP(MD) No.13570 of 2011 1 M. RAMANI 2 S. MAHARAJAN 3 V. RAJU ... PETITIONERS / ACCUSED 1 to 3 D.JOHN VIJAY SINGH ... INTERVENOR Vs STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TOWN POLICE STATION, THIRUMANGALAM, MADURAI DISTRICT CRIME NO.505/2011 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. G.R.SWAMINATHAN Advocate For Respondent : M/S. K.S.DURAIPANDIAN, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) For Intervenor : M/S. T.K.GOPALAN, Advocate PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.505 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police for alleged offence under Sections 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 447, 406, 420, 355, 506(ii) r/w 34, 149 I.P.C. Apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police, the petitioners have come up with this petition seeking anticipatory bail. 2. According to the case of prosecution, the petitioners who are all very powerful persons in the village, have blocked the public pathway leading to the lands of the de-facto complainant and three villagers. This according to the de-facto complainant, amounts to offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 447, 406, 420, 355, 506(ii) r/w 34, 149 I.P.C. 3. The petitioners / accused have filed affidavits before this Court stating that of course it is true that the road has been blocked by planting some stones. But the same was not done by these accused. Further, it is stated that the petitioners have got no objection for the removal of stones from the pathway. Further it is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ stated that the stones were put up by yet another person, who is the brother of the second petitioner and the petitioners have got no objection for the removal of the same. Further it is stated that the petitioners are willing to co-operate with any authority for the removal of the stones and for the restoration of the pathway. It is also stated that the petitioners themselves are willing only to restore the pathway. Because, it will be very useful for all. The said affidavits are recorded. 4. The de-facto complainant has filed M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 seeking to intervene in this matter and the same has been allowed. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the intervenor would submit that by the act of these petitioners in planting the stones across the road, three Villagers have been put in trouble. He would further submit that unless the stones are not removed, it is not possible for them to lead their place. He would further submit that the petitioners have only put up the stones. But for the purposes of getting anticipatory bail, they have come with these false affidavits. He would further submit that unless the stones are not removed and the pathway is restored, the petitioners may not be granted anticipatory bail. 6. I have considered the above submissions. 7. As of now, as per the affidavits filed before this Court, the petitioners have got no objection for the removal of the stones and for the restoration of the road. They have further stated that they will not disturb the road being used by the villagers. 8. Regarding the request made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that as to whether the police Officer can be directed to remove the stones, that is not at all possible for this Court. In the petition for anticipatory bail, this Court cannot issue any such direction, either to the Local Authorities or to the police Officers to remove the stones. This Court is concerned only with the prima facie case against the petitioners. 9. Since the petitioners have stated that they have not planted the stones and they have got no objection for the removal of stones, I find prima facie case in favour of the petitioners for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners but with conditions. 10. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail, in the event of arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thirumangalam, on executing 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 respondent police or the police Officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the petitioners shall report before the respondent police every day at 10.30 a.m., for a period of four weeks, without fail an on further condition that the the petitioners shall co- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ operate with the police or the Revenue Authorities for the removal of the stones and for the restoration of the pathway. The petitioners shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C scrupulously. sd/- 01/11/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE THIRUMANGALAM 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 TOWN POLICE STATION, THIRUMANGALAM, MADURAI DISTRICT +1. CC to M/S. G.R.SWAMINATHAN Advocate SR.No.37448 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.13570 of 2011 Date :01/11/2011 SMA/02.11.2011/6C/3P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/