BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Saturday, the Twenty Ninth day of October Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU CRL OP(MD) No.14127 of 2011 1. B.BALU @ BALAMURUGAN 2. SHANMUGAM ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO. 1 & 2 Vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE KUMBAKONAM TALUK POLICE STATION, CRIME NO.370 OF 2011, KUMBAKONAM,THANJAVUR DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. B.JAMEELARASU Advocate For Respondent : MR.K.S.DURAI PANDI, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.370 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police for offence under Section 452 I.P.C and Section 3(1) of PPDL Act. The petitioners were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 10.10.2011. They have come up with this petition, seeking bail. 2. According to the case of prosecution, the first petitioner had given his car to the de-facto complainant for the purpose of repairing the same. Subsequently, when the vehicle was delivered to the first petitioner, according to the first petitioner, the diesel filter of the said vehicle has been changed stealthily by the de-facto complainant. When the first petitioner questioned the same, which has resulted in quarrel between the parties and subsequently, the property belonged to the de-facto complainant was smashed. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners have not committed any such offence as alleged by the de-facto complainant. According to him, since the first petitioner questioned the changing of filter, a false complaint has been given. 4. I have considered the above submissions. 5. Having regard to the fact that the occurrence appears to have been happened due to quarrel between the parties and there has been no https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ previous case against the petitioners and they have got no bad antecedents and all other attendant circumstances, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioners, but with stringent conditions. 6. In the result, this petition is ordered and bail is granted to the petitioners on the following conditions:- (i) The petitioners shall be enlarged on bail 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 Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam; and (ii) the petitioners shall report before the respondent police, everyday at 10.30 a.m. for a period of four weeks. sd/- 29/10/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KUMBAKONAM. 2. -DO- THRO THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE THANJAVUR AT KUMBAKONAM. 3. THE OFFICER IN CHARGE, SUB JAIL, KUMBAKONAM. 4. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUMBAKONAM TALUK POLICE STATION, KUMBAKONAM, THANJAVUR DISTRICT. 5. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1. CC to M/S. B.JAMEELARASU Advocate SR.No.37187 SR : 31.10.2011 : 2p/7c ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.14127 of 2011 Date :29/10/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/