BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Eighteenth day of November Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH CRL OP(MD) No.15015 of 2011 ROSELY ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 Vs THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOLLENCODE POLICE STATION, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT (CR.NO.384 OF 2011) ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. C.K.M.APPAJI Advocate For Respondent : Mr.K.S.DURAI PANDIAN Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner was arrested on 01.11.2011 for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 120(b), 34 of IPC read with 4,5,5(A) of Explosive Substance Act and 6 of Explosive Act, in Crime No.384 of 2011, on the file of the respondent police. 2.Heard Mr.C.K.M.Appaji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.S.Duraipandian, learned Additinoal Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit in his argument that the petitioner is the mother of the first accused and she has been implicated in this case since she happens to be the mother of the first accused and the petitioner was falsley implicated in this case due to some wordy altercation. He would further submit that she has no connection to the alleged offence said to have been committed by the first accused and she is an old lady and therefore, she may be considered bail. 4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit in his argument that all the accused including the petitioner have committed an offence in keeping the explosive substance which have been prohibited. However, if for any reason, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, suitable orders may be passed for the secured presence of the petitioner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5.COnsidering the submissions made on either side, this Court could see that the petitioner is an old woman, aged about 71 years and the allegation against the petitioner is that she is also found in illegal possession of the said explosive subtance. However, considering her age as well as she being a woman , this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. 6.Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail 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 Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kulithurai, Kanyakumari District, and on further condition that the petiioner shall report before the respondent police at 10.30 a.m. until further orders and she should not engage in any other offence and she is also directed to co-operate with the investigation. sd/- 18/11/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1.THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO. II, KULITHURAI KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT 2.DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT AT NAGERCOIL 3.THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI 4.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOLLENCODE POLICE STATION, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT 5.THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, WOMEN JAIL, TRICHY +1. CC to M/S. C.K.M.APPAJI Advocate SR.No.40425 rl/7c – 21.11.2011 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.15015 of 2011 Date :18/11/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/