BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Thirteenth day of September Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice R.MALA CRL OP(MD) No.11848 of 2011 1. M.JAYARAM 2. P.M.MANNAN : PETITIONERS/ACCUSED Vs. THE STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, C-5, KARIMEDU POLICE STATION, MADURAI CITY. (IN CRIME NO.2010 OF 2011) : RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. S.MOHANKUMAR 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 apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 109, 294(b) and 506(ii) I.P.C. and Section 3(1) of Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, in Crime No.2010 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that since the first petitioner was arrested on 07.09.2011, he is not pressing the petition for anticipatory bail in respect of the first petitioner and he has also made an endorsement to that effect. In view of the endorsement made by the learned counsel appearing for the 1st petitioner, this petition is dismissed as not pressed in respect of the 1st petitioner. 3.He further submits that the second petitioner is the Deputy Mayor of Madurai Corporation and because of the present scenario, a false case has been foisted against the petitioners under Sections 109, 294(b) and 506(ii) I.P.C. and Section 3(1) of Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act. He further submit that a complaint has been given by the wife of the District Public Prosecutor, stating that on 01.09.2010, at midnight 12.00 o'clock, her son Nathan has intimated the fact that he heard the noise of the bottle broken and the next day morning, she witnessed that one soda bottle and tube light of the house have been broken. He further https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ submits that in that complaint, it was specifically mentioned that at the instigation of Jeyaraman and Mannan and their henchmen have committed the offence. He further submits that the value of the property is worth about Rs.40/- and since, the 2nd petitioner is belonging to opposite public political party, he apprehend for arrest and hence, he prays for anticipatory bail. 4. The learned counsel for the intervenor would submit that the second petitioner is facing Section 302 I.P.C cases and he was also an accused in two cases making criminal intimidation against Thashildar and ADSP, which are pending. He further submits that the defacto complainant is none other than the wife of the District Public Prosecutor and he was dealing with so may sensitive cases against the political party, in which, the second petitioner is also an accused. He further submits that the Public Prosecutor is an Officer of the Court and he was threatened by the accused and his house has been damaged and the investigation is an earlier stage and hence, he prays for dismissal of this application. 5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that at the instigation of A1 and A2 some persons have threatened the Public Prosecutor on 01.09.2011 at 7.00 p.m. and that has been intimated to the concerned police and phone number has also been given. He further submits that on the same day at midnight 12.00 o'clock, the son of the Public Prosecutor heard the noise of bottle broken and intimated to his mother, who is the defacto complainant and on the next day morning, she opened the door and witnessed that tube light and soda bottle were broken and the glass door of the window has also been broken. He further submits that the worth of the property is only Rs.200 and the Public Prosecutor was threatened by the accused and his house was also damaged. He further submits that three cases are pending against the 2nd petitioner and the investigation is an initial stage and hence, he prays for dismissal of this application. 6. I have heard the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. 7. The alleged occurrence has been taken place on 02.09.2011 and before that, on 01.09.2011 at 7.00 p.m., the Public Prosecutor has received a threatening call and the same has been intimated to the higher official, in which he was specifically mentioned that A1 and A2 have instigated the persons for threatening the public Prosecutor. On the same day at midnight 12.00 o'clock, the son of the defacto complainant heard the noise and that has been intimated to the defacto complainant and on the next day morning, she came to know that two soda bottles as well as tube light and window glass pan of the house have been broken and the value of the damaged is worth about Rs.200. Therefore, a case has been registered under Sections 109, 294(b) and 506(ii) I.P.C. and Section 3(1) of Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act against the petitioners and some others. The second petitioner is the Deputy Mayor and it is true that the house of the Public Prosecutor has been damaged and also he received threatening call and phone number also has been given. Even though, the case has been registered on 02.09.2011, no steps have been taken by the Investigating Officer for collecting the materials and to find the person who made threatening call and who damaged the house. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 8.Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and also considering the gravity of the offence and even though, the second petitioner was not yet arrested, neither he interfered with the investigation nor absconded from the jurisdiction, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the second petitioner with certain conditions. 9. Accordingly, the second petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of his arrest or on his appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Madurai 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 Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the second petitioner shall report before the Court concerned daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders. The second petitioner shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Scrupulously. 10. The second petitioner shall appear before the concerned Magistrate within a period of 15 days from the date on which the order copy made ready, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail stands dismissed. Sd/- 13/09/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.5, MADURAI. 2. -DO- THRO' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MADURAI DISTRICT. 3. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. 4. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, C-5, KARIMEDU POLICE STATION, MADURAI CITY. +1 CC to M/S. S.MOHANKUMAR Advocate SR.No.31180 +1 CC to M/S. G.R.SWAMINATHAN Advocate SR.No.31468 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.11848 of 2011 Date :13/09/2011 NSV/14.9.11/3P/7C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/