BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Ninth day of September Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice R.MALA CRL OP(MD) No.11961 of 2011 KUMARAVEL ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 Vs STATE REP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ELUMALAI POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT IN CRIME NO.204 OF 2011 ... RESPONDENT /COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. M.AJMAL KHAN Advocate For Respondent :Mr.A.RAMAR,Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner/Accused No.2 apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 342, 366, 307 , 506(ii) IPC r/w Section 109 IPC in Crime No.204 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that a false case has been registered against five persons in Crime No.204 of 2011 under Sections 323, 324, 342, 366, 307, 506(ii) IPC r/w Section 109 IPC stating that the alleged occurrence took place on 23.10.2009 and this petitioner is arrayed as A2. The de-facto complainant, one Pandian who is a Reporter of Naveena Netrikkan has given the present complaint stating that he is an authorised news Reporter in the year 2009, and in the said Naveena Netrikkan magazine, he had written an article against one Suresh Babu @ Pottu Suresh and in furtherance of that the said Suresh Babu @ Pottu Suresh has preferred a complaint against the de-facto complainant as if he has demanded money for not publising the article against him and therefore, the case has been registered in Crime No.204 of 2011. During the relevant period, the petitioner is working as Assistant Commissioner of Police (Intelligence) at Madurai and now, he is working as Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thiruvannamalai. He would further submit that the allegation against the petitioner herein is that he has contacted the de-facto complainant over phone and threatended for facing dire consequences if he has published the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ news item against the said Suresh Babu @ Pottu Suresh. The complaint was given after two years and now, apprehending for arrest , this petition has been filed seeking for enlargement on anticipatory bail. 4.Refuting the same, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor(Crl.Side) would submit that the de-facto complainant is a Reporter in Naveena Netrikkan Magazine and he has published the article as against one Suresh Babu @ Pottu Suresh, as to whether Suresh Babu @ Pottu Suresh is the Deputy Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu and for that A2/the petitioner threatened the de- facto complainant for dire consequences and further stated that Suresh Babu @ Pottu Suresh is the brain behind the Central Minister and he has also threatened the de-facto complainant and this family members to do away. A1 has preferred a complaint against the de-facto complainant and the case has been registered in Crime No.2530 of 2009 before the Tallakulam Police Station. The de-facto complainant has got the anticipatory bail and as per the order of this Court the de-facto complainant is abiding the conditinos before the Tallakulam Police Station and that matter was known by A1. A1 and A3 are the brothers and they went to the Tallakulam Police Station and A1 slapped on the de- facto complainant's cheek and A3 attacked the de-facto complainant on his back with chair in the presence of the petitioner. The petitioner directed the de-facto complainant to get apology from the A1/Suresh Babu @ Pottu Suresh and the investigation is going on and hence, he prays for dismissal of this application. He would further submit that the reason for the delay in giving the complaint, is that at that time, the D.M.K. Party was in power. 5.At this juncture, the petitioner would submit that really something is happened and the same may be published in the same magazine since he is a Reporter of the magazine. But during the tenure of the D.M.K.Government only, he published the news in the Naveena Netrikkan. 6.COnsidering the rival submissions made by both sides, it is seen that admittely, the de-facto complainant is a Reporter of the Naveena Netrikkan. It is also admitted fact that he published the news item that A1 is the brain of Union Minister. It is the case of the prosecution that because of the news item published in the Naveena Netrikkan, he threatened the petitioner over phone on the basis that A1 preferred a complaint which was registered befor the Tallakulam Police Station in Crime No.2530 of 2009. In that, the de-facto complainant was enlaged on anticipatory bail in that he abiding the condition. It is also stated that during the abiding the conditions, he was assaulted by A1 and A3 who are the brothers. But admittedly, there is no document to show that they assaulted them and sustained injury and even though the case has been registered under Sections 323,324, 342, 366, 307, 506(ii) IPC r/w Section 109 IPC. Admittedly, though the alleged occurrence took place on 23.10.2009, the complaint was given only on 06.09.2011. It is worthwhile to consider the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the de-facto complainant is a Reporter of Naveena Netrikkan and during the tenure of previous Government he published the news item against A1 and if really https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ such thing is happened, that must be published in the magazine. 7.Considering the facts as well as the delay in preferring the complaint, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditinos. 8.Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of his arrest or on his appearance befor the learned Judicial Magistrate, Usilmapatti, Madurai District and on hix executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfactino of the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the petitioner shall report before the leanred Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thiruvannamalai daily at 10.30 .am. Until further orders. The petitioner shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Scrupulously. 9.The petitioner shall appear before the concerned Magistrate within a period of 15 days from the date on which the order copy made ready, failing which, the petition for anticiaptory bail stands dismissed. sd/- 09/09/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1.THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, USILAMPATTI, MADURAI DISTRICT 2.DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE MADURAI DISTRICT 3.THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I, THIRUVANNAMALAI 4.THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI 5.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ELUMALAI POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT +1. CC to M/S. M.AJMAL KHAN Advocate SR.No.31012 rl/7c – 14.9.2011 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.11961 of 2011 Date :09/09/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/