1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Saturday, the Twelfth day of November Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr. Justice S.NAGAMUTHU CRL OP(MD) Nos.14538 AND 14681 of 2011 1 SENGAIMARAN 2 MUTHURAMALINGAM 3 RAMALINGAM 4 KADAMBASAMY 5 SUBRAMANI ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED IN CRL.O.P.14538/11 1 ARIVUKKARASU 2 PANDY 3 PANDIYAN 4 VANNI 5 AARUMUGAM ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED IN CRL.O.P.14681/11 S.M.MANICKAM ... INTEVENING PETITIONER IN CRL.OP.14538/11 Vs STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE THIRUPUVANAM POLICE STATION, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT, CRIME NO.343/2011 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT IN BOTH THE CASES For Petitioner : M/S. K.VINAYAGAN Advocate For Respondent : MR.K.S.DURAIPANDIAN, Addl. Public Prosecutor (Crl. Side) For Intervener : MR.R.R.KANNAN, Advocate PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners in both the petitions are the accused in Crime No.343 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police, for offences under Section 147, 148 of I.P.C and Section 3 of TNPPDL Act. Apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police, they have come up with these petitions. 2. The de-facto complainant has filed M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 in Crl.O.P(MD)No.14538 of 2011 seeking to intervene in this matter. The same has been allowed. 3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the intervenor as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4. According to the case of prosecution, the de-facto complainant is a registered contractor under the Panchayat Union. He has been entrusted the work to level the area surrounding the Panchayat Union office which got damaged in the recent rains. The de-facto complainant with the use of a J.C.B was doing the said work. At that time, these petitioners headed by the first petitioner in Crl.O.P(MD)No.14538 of 2011, came there armed with weapons and caused damage to the J.C.B. With these allegations, the present case has been registered. 5. It is submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the first petitioner in Crl.O.P(MD)No.14538 of 2011 has got five previous cases to his credit already. The others petitioners are his associates. They have caused disturbance to the public by entering into the premises of the Panchayat Union office by doing the above illegal acts. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the intervenor would submit that there are several cases against the first petitioner in Crl.O.P(MD)No.14538 of 2011 and he is the leader of the other accused. He would further submit that even though there is no fault committed by the de-facto complainant, the accused have committed the above crime. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would deny the above allegations. According to him, the first petitioner in Crl.O.P (MD)No.14538 of 2011, is a registered contractor. As per the work allotted to him, earlier he laid the road. Since the same was damaged, he went to the spot and questioned the authority of the de-facto complainant. Because of the same, a wordy quarrel arose and in which, the accused party were attacked. There is a counter case registered in Crime No.344 of 2011. 8. I have considered the above submissions. 9. The photographs produced before me by the learned counsel appearing for the intervenor would go to show that expensive damages have been caused to the J.C.B. The first petitioner in Crl.O.P(MD)No.14538 of 2011 has got five previous cases of this nature. It shows that he is repeatedly committing the crimes. Therefore, he is not entitled for anticipatory bail. His custodial interrogation is very much essential for the police. Further, if anticipatory bail is granted to him, there is likelihood of committing similar crimes. So far as the other petitioners 2 to 5 in Crl.O.P(MD)No.14538 of 2011 and the petitioners in Crl.O.P(MD)No.14681 of 2011 are concerned, there is no previous case against them. Apart from that, there is a counter case also in Crime No.344 of 2011. 10. In the result, Crl.O.P(MD)No.14538 of 2011 is dismissed in respect of the first petitioner. 11. Having regard to the nature of allegation made against the petitioners and all other attending circumstances including their age, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners 2 to 5 in Crl.O.P(MD)No.14538 of 2011 and the petitioners in Crl.O.P(MD)No.14681 of 2011, but with conditions. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 12. Accordingly, the petitioners 2 to 5 in Crl.O.P(MD)No.14538 of 2011 and the petitioners in Crl.O.P(MD)No.14681 of 2011 are ordered to be released on bail, in the event of arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Manamadurai, 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 remain at Madurai and report before the Karuppayoorani Police Station, every day at 10.30 a.m., for a period of four weeks, without fail. The petitioners shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C scrupulously. sd/- 12/11/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MANAMADURAI. 2. THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE SIVAGANGAI. 3. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE THIRUPUVANAM POLICE STATION, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT. 4. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KARUPPAYOORANI POLICE STATION, MADURAI. 5. THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. + 2 ccs' to M/S. K.VINAYAGAN Advocate SR.Nos.39339, 39340 + 1 cc to MR.R.R.KANNAN, Advocate, SR No.39400 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD)Nos.14538 & 14681 of 2011 Date :12/11/2011 RJ/16.11.11 3p/9c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/