BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Thirty First day of October Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice S.NAGAMUTHU CRL OP(MD) No.13887 of 2011 1 ARUMUGAM 2 SATHISHKUMAR 3 KUMAR ...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3 Vs STATE REP BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE AVADUAIRKOVIL POLICE STATION, PUDUKOTTAI DISTRICT IN CRIME NO. 167 OF 2011 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. K.GOKUL Advocate For Respondent : Mr.K.S.DURAI PANDIAN, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- Apprhending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for offences under Sections 307, 379(N.P), 294(b), 341, 323, 324 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code in Crime No.167 of 2011 , the petitiones are before this Court seeking anticipatory bail. 2.According to the case of the prosecution, due to the election motive, at the instigation of the first petitioner, the petitioners 2 and 3 waylaid the de-facto complainant was proceeding in a motor cycle and attacked him with an aruval causing injuries. It is also alleged that the money kept by the de-facto complainant was also decamped. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that due to previous motive, the petitioners have been falsely implicated. 4.I have considered the above submissions. 5.So far as the first petitioner is concerned, even according to the case of prosecution, he was not present at the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ time of occurrence and there is no overt act against the first petitioner, and therefore, he is entitled for anticipatory bail. So far as the other two petitioners are concerned, it is alleged that they attacked the de-facto complainant with aruval and also looted the money. Since, there are prima facie materials against the petitioners 2 and 3, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners 2 and 3 . 6.In the result, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the first petitioner. 7.Accordingly, the first petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, in the event of arrest or on his appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Aranthangi 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 respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction odf the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the first petitioner shall report before the respondent police every day at 10.30 a.m. until further orders. The first petitinoer shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Scrupulously. Insofar as the petitioners 2 and 3 are concerned, this petition is dismissed. sd/- 31/10/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1.THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ARANTHANGI 2.DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE PUDUKOTTAI DISTRICT 3.THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI 4.THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE AVADUAIRKOVIL POLICE STATION, PUDUKOTTAI DISTRICT +1. CC to M/S. K.GOKUL Advocate SR.No.37281 rl/6c – 3.11.2011 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.13887 of 2011 Date :31/10/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/