BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Fifteenth day of September Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice R.MALA CRL OP(MD) No.10786 of 2011 1 KRISHNAN 2 NAVANEETHAN 3 CHANDRASEKAR 4 RENGASAMY 5 VELLAICHAMY 6 THIRUMOORTHI 7 KARTHIK 8 RAMALINGAM 9 VEERAPPAN 10 VENKITTAN 11 JOTHI 12 KANTHAN 13 RASU 14 KARUPPAIAYAH ... PETITIONERS / ACCUSED 1 TO 14 Vs STATE REP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PALAVIDUTHI POLICE STATION, KARUR DIST. CRIME NO 106 OF 2011 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. V.KANNAN Advocate For Respondent : MR. A. RAMAR, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners/accused No.1 to 14 apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 147, 341,294(b), 323,342, 506(i) of I.P.C in Crime No.106 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, 341,294(b), 323, 506(i) of I.P.C and and there is enmity between A1 and the defacto complainant in respect of the property dispute and the alleged occurrence has been taken place on 1.8.2011 but the case has been registered only on 6.8.2011 and the injured has been discharged from the hospital and the petitioners apprehend for arrest and hence, he prays for enlargement on anticipatory bail. 3. Refuting the same,the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the alleged occurrence has been taken place on 1.8.2011 and there is enmity between the first accused and the defacto complainant and the case has been registered against 14 persons on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6.8.2011 under Sections 147, 341,294(b), 323, 506(i) of I.P.C and the injured has been discharged from the hospital and investigation is going on and hence, he prays for dismissal of this application. 4. Considering the rival submissions made by both sides,because of the property dispute between A1 and the defacto complainant, the alleged occurrence has been taken place on 1.8.2011 but the complaint ha been given only on 6.8.2011 and there is a delay in preferring the complaint. Further more, injured has been discharged from the hospital and even though, the petitioners were not arrested 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 arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kulithalai, and each of them 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, anticipatory bail petition stands dismissed. sd/- 15/09/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.II, KULITHALAI, KARUR DISTRICT 2 DO THRO' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KARUR 3 THE ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT MADURAI 4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PALAVIDUTHI POLICE STATION, KARUR DIST. 1. CC to M/S. V.KANNAN Advocate SR.No.31859: DM::2011:SEPTEMBER:19:: ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.10786 of 2011 Date :15/09/2011 2P:6C:: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/