1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT (Criminal Jurisdiction) Saturday, the Second day of April Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. VENKATARAMAN CRL OP(MD) No.4512 of 2011 1 P.M.MANNAN 2 RAGUPATHY 3 THIRUGNANAM :PETITIONERS -Vs- THE STATE REP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KEELAVALAVU POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT. CRIME NO.43 OF 2011. :RESPONDENT For Petitioner : R. MEENAKSHISUNDARAM Advocate For Respondent : MR.P.N.PANDIDURAI, Additional Public Prosecutor. PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 Cr.P.C. ORDER:The Court Made the following order:- Apprehending arrest by the respondent police in crime No.43 of 2011 for the offences under Sections 143, 341, 332 and 188 of the Indian Penal Code, the present anticipatory bail petition is filed by the petitioners. 2.The case of the prosecution is that on 01.04.2011 at 4.15 p.m., when the defacto complainant was informed that the Hon'ble Central Minister Mr.M.K.Azhagiri and 50 others are intending to canvass for the vote at Villadikarar Temple in Ambalakaranpatti Village, he along with his men have gone there to take video of the same. At the time, the Hon'ble Minister has asked the Videographers why they are taking videograph and attempted to assault the defacto complainant. At that time, the petitioners and few others have assaulted the defacto complainant and tried to snatch the video camera. However, he has safely removed the video camera. 3.However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that no such incident has ever happened. That apart, he has contended that since a Public Interest Litigation has been moved against the District Collector, Madurai, the defacto complainant, his subordinate, has given false complaint making untenable allegations against the Hon'ble Minister, the petitioners and few others. Thus, according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the entire allegations made against the petitioners and others are totally false. 4.I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 5.Considering the gravity of the offence and also considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, I am of the considered view that it is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. The defacto complainant is Tahsildar and in my considered opinion, the question of tampering this witness will not arise. That apart, the 1st petitioner is the Deputy Mayor of Madurai Corporation and two others are party functionaries. 6.Hence, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail, in the event of their arrest or on their appearance before the jurisdictional magistrate, subject to the following conditions: (i) Each of the petitioners shall execute a bond separately for a sum of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer or the learned Judicial Magistrate, Melur. (ii) The petitioners shall appear before the respondent police as and when required for the purpose of investigation in this case. The provision of Section 438 Cr.P.C., shall be adhered to by the petitioners. 7.The petitioners are granted 15 days time to appear before the arresting officer or the jurisdictional magistrate for execution of bond. sd/- 02/04/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO: 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Melur, Madurai District. 2.-Do- Thro' The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai. 3.The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 4.The Inspector of Police, Keelavalavu Police Station, Madurai District. +1CC to R. MEENAKSHISUNDARAM Advocate SR.No.12399. RP/02.04.2011/2P/6C. ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.4512 of 2011 Date :02/04/2011. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/