BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Sixteenth day of December Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH CRL OP(MD) No.15912 of 2011 1 LOGIDASAN 2 MANGALANATHADURAI ... PETITIONER / ACCUSED 2 & 3 Vs THE STATE THROUGH THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE UTCHIPULI POLICE STATION, RAMANATHAPURAM DIST IN CR.NO. 287 OF 2011 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. K.R. LAXMAN Advocate For Respondent : M/S.K.S.DURAIPANDIAN, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners are arrayed as A2 & A3 and they prayed for grant of anticipatory bail under section 438 Cr.P.C., for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 427, 506(ii) and 379 (NP) I.P.C., in Crime No.287 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail. 2.Heard Mr.K.R.Laxman, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.K.S.Duraipandian, learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Criminal side) appearing for the State. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit in his argument that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence. He would further submit in his argument that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case and hence, he prays for anticipatory bail in favour of the petitioners. 4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Criminal side) would submit in his argument that the petitioners along with other accused entered into the property of the de-facto complainant and demolished three shops and also stolen away wire, drilling machine, chair and tube light and threatened the de-facto complainant with dire consequences. 5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I could see that the petitioners along with other accused said to have caused https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ damage and stolen some articles from the premises of the de-facto complainant. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, but with stringent conditions. 6. Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ramanathapuram and each of them 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, Ramanathapuram and on further condition that each petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand Only) to the credit of Crime No.287 of 2011 before the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the petitioners shall appear before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation. The petitioners shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously. 7.The petitioners shall appear before the Magistrate concerned within a period of 15 days, failing which, the anticipatory bail granted shall stand automatically cancelled. sd/- 16/12/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.II RAMANATHAPURAM 2 -DO-THRO' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE RAMANATHAPURAM 3 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI 4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE UTCHIPULI POLICE STATION, RAMANATHAPURAM DIST +1. CC to M/S. K.R. LAXMAN Advocate SR.No.43975 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.15912 of 2011 Date :16/12/2011 SMA/20.12.2011/6C/2P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/