1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT (Criminal Jurisdiction) Monday, the Twenty First day of November Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH CRL OP(MD) No.15079 of 2011 CHIDAMBARAM :PETITIONER / ACCUSED NO.1 -Vs- THE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MOONTRADAIPPU POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT. CRIME NO.150 OF 2011 :RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner:M/S. SIVA AYYAPPAN, Advocate For Respondent:MR.K.S.DURAIPANDIAN, ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR For Intervenor:MR.M.S.SULAIMAN FOR MR.V.ANGUSAMY, Advocate. PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 Cr.P.C. ORDER:The Court Made the following order:- The petitioner apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 294(b), 506(ii) of IPC and 3(i0 of TNPPDL Act in Crime No.150 of 2011, on the file of the respondent police. He has approached this Court for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2.Heard Mr.Siva Ayyappan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.K.S.Durai Pandian, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and Mr.M.S.Sulaiman, for Mr.V.Angusamy, learned counsel for the intervenor. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been arrayed as A-1 and the case against the petitioner was that he involved in the occurrence along with other accused on 11.11.2011 and cut the cable TV Wire and also iron rod belonging to the de-facto complainant. He would further submit that the other accused, viz., A-2 and A-4 have been granted anticipatory bail by the learned Sessions Judge, in Cr.M.P.No. 4905 of 2011, dated 16.11.2011. He would further submit in his argument that this petitioner is also standing on the same footing like that of the other petitioners and therefore, he would request for the grant of anticipatory bail. 4.The learned counsel appearing for the intervenor would submit in his argument that he has got 9 previous cases viz., Crime Nos. 78, 88 and 145 of 2007 and Crime No.95 of 2010, Crime No. 87/2000, Crime No. 113 of 2011, Crime No. 106/2002, Crime No. 115 / 2006, etc., and those cases are pending. He would further submit that he is a chronic offender and therefore, he may not be granted anticipatory bail. He would also submit that the petitioner is actually threatening the de-facto complainant. 5.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit in his argument that the investigation is being carried on and the petitioner has got 8 cases, four in Madras and four before the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 respondent police. He would further submit in his argument that the investigation is pending and the co-accused have already been released by the learned Sessions Judge on 16.11.2011. 6.Considering the submissions made on either side, I could see that the petitioner has been ranked as A-1 and there are series of cases pending against him and he is also involved in several cases. However, the offences said to have been committed by him in this case is concerned, he had cut the cable TV wire and also the iron rod belonging to the de-facto complainant and on that basis, the case was registered. The learned Sessions Judge has also granted anticipatory bail to other co-accused who have got similar overt act in the case. The learned Sessions Judge has also imposed a condition to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- directly to the de-facto complainant. However, the case is under investigation and therefore, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, of course, subject to certain stringent conditions. 7.Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail, in the event of his arrest or on his appearance before the Judicial Magistrate concerned on executing 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, Nanguneri, and on further condition that the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the credit in Crime No.150 of 2011 on the file of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Nanguneri and the learned Magistrate is directed to keep the same as Court deposit and on further condition that the petitioner shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders for the purpose of interrogation. 8.The petitioner shall appear before the Magistrate concerned within a period of 15 days, failing which, the anticipatory bail granted shall stand automatically cancelled. sd/- 21/11/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO: 1.The Judicial Magistrate,Nanguneri, Tirunelveli District. 2.-Do-Thro' The Chief Judicial Magistrate,Tirunelveli. 3.The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,Madurai. 4.The Inspector of Police, Moontradaippu Police Station, Tirunelveli District. +1CC to M/S.SIVA AYYAPPAN Advocate SR.No.40778. +1CC TO MR.V.ANGUSAMY, ADVOCATE. SR.NO.40953. RP/22.11.2011/2p/7c. ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.15079 of 2011 Date :21/11/2011. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/