BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Twenty Second day of November Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH CRL OP(MD) No.14869 of 2011 1 GUNASEKARAN, 2 SATHIYASEELAN, 3 MANIKANDAN, 4 PALAVESAMUTHU, 5 TAMILARASAN, ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1,5,6,8 AND 11 Vs STATE REP.BY, THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VALLIYOOR POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT CR.NO.601/2011 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT KATHIJA .. PETITIONER/INTERVENER For Petitioner : MR.V.KATHIRVELU, Senior Counsel for M/S. S.RAGAVENTHRE Advocate For Respondent : MR.K.S.DURAIPANDIAN, Addl.Public Prosecutor(Crl.Side) For Intervener : M/S.M.VINOTH SINGH MISRA, Advocate PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners are the accused and they prayed for the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C., for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 427, 379 I.P.C r/w Section 3(1) of TamilNadu Public Property Damages and Loss Act in Crime No.601 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police. 2. Heard Mr.V.Kathirvelu, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Miss.S.Ragaventhre, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.M.Vinoth Singh Misra, learned counsel appearing for the intervenor and Mr.K.S.Duraipandian, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 3. The learned Senior Counsel would submit in his argument that the complaint has been given against the accused and the said complaint is given by one Kathija. But the de-facto complainant is a hearsay witness and therefore the complaint itself is not maintainable. This case has been falsely foisted against the first petitioner and others. He would further submit in his argument https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ that the first petitioner is a important person in the village and the marriage of his daughter is scheduled to be held on 27.11.2011 for which he has produced the marriage invitation. He would also submit in his argument that petitioners 2 to 5/A-5, A-6, A-8 and A-11 are juvenile accused. He has also produced the certificates regarding the date of birth of the said persons in support of his argument. He would also submit that the first petitioner and other petitioners are ready to abide by any conditions likely to be imposed by this Court for the grant of anticipatory bail. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the intervenor would submit in his argument that the de-facto complainant has suffered huge damage and she had sustained huge loss in respect of her household articles which were looted by the accused persons and therefore, it is not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail. He would further submit that the damages have come to an extent of Rs.2,50,000/- and therefore, this petition for anticipatory bail need not be considered. 5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit in his argument that the petitioners are ranked as A-1, A-5, A-6, A-8 and A- 11 and the investigation is pending and if for any reason, this Court is of the view that the petitioners 2 to 5 are juveniles, suitable orders may be passed in respect of those accused persons. He would further submit that according to the complaint, the damages are to an extent of Rs.2,50,000/- in respect of looting of household articles by accused persons. He would further submit that if for any reason, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the first petitioner, suitable conditions may be imposed for the secured presence of the first petitioner. 6. I have considered the above submissions. 7. According to the records produced by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, the date of birth of petitioners 2 to 5 is 12.05.1995, 03.04.1995, 15.09.1995 and 07.12.1997 respectively. Even though petitioners 2 to 4 have mentioned their age as 19 years and the fifth petitioner has mentioned his age as 18 years, the fact remains that they are juvenile accused. Therefore, this Court has no impediment for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners 2 to 5. 8. As far as the first petitioner is concerned, the marriage invitation produced by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would go to show that his daughter is getting marriage on 27.11.2011 and the alleged damage caused to the house-hold articles is to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/-. Considering these facts, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner on deposit of a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-. 9. Accordingly, the first petitioner is released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor and on 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 Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor and on further condition that he shall deposit a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs and Fifty Thousand Only) to the credit of Crime No.601 of 2011 before the learned Magistrate concerned and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ on further condition that the he shall appear before the respondent police every day at 10.30 a.m., except the marriage date of his daughter i.e., on 27.11.2011, until further orders. 10. Accordingly, the petitioners 2 to 5 are released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance before the Juvenile Justice Board, Tirunelveli on executing a bond by one of their respective parents for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties that may be preferably one of them be the other parent, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer of the Juvenile Justice Board. The petitioners shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously. 11. 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/- 22/11/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE VALLIYOOR 2 THE PRESIDING OFFICER, JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD, TIRUNELVELI 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VALLIYOOR POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI DT 4 THE ADDL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI +1. CC to M/S. S.RAGAVENTHRE Advocate SR.No.40811 +1. CC to M/S.M.VINOTH SINGH MISRA, Advocate SR.No.40897 ssk/22.11.2011 /7c -3p/- ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.14869 of 2011 Date :22/11/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/