1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Twenty Second day of September Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice R.MALA CRL OP(MD) No.12667 of 2011 1 SUNDARAPANDI 2 SUBASH ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED RANK NOT KNOWN Vs THE STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE PATTIVEERANPATTI POLICE STATION, IN CRIME NO.289/2011, DINDIGUL DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. J.LAWRANCE Advocate For Respondent : MR.A.RAMAR, Addl.Public Prosecutor( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 147,148,452,294(b),323,436 and 506(ii) I.P.C. in Crime No.289 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail. 2.The learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners name were not find place in FIR and the alleged occurrence took place on 11.09.2011 and the case has been registered against four named persons and other unnamed persons. He further submit that A1 and A2 were enlarged on bail and the petitioners are nothing to do with the commission of offence and the injured has already been discharged from the hospital and hence, they pray for enlargement on anticipatory bail. 3.Refuting the same, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl.Side) would submit that the accused A1 and 5 others have forcibly entered into the complainant's petty shop in a drunken mood and they picked up the quarrel with him and abused him by using filthy language when the same was questioned by the de-facto complainant the first accused attacked the de-facto complainant with brick stone and caused simple injury and damaged the de-facto complainant's shop to the tune of Rs.2,000/- and the investigation is going on and hence, he prays for dismissal of this application. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4.Considering the rival submissions made by both sides, it is seen that the alleged occurrence took place on 11.09.2011 and the complaint was given on the same day against four named persons and the other unnamed persons but the petitioners name not mentioned in the FIR and no overt act and also considering the fact that the injured has already been discharged from the hospital, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions. 5.Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of their arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nilakkottai, Dindigul District, 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 Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the petitioners shall report before the Court concerned daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders. The petitioners shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously. 6. The petitioners 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 anticipatory bail stands dismissed. sd/- 22/09/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, NILAKKOTTAI, DINDIGUL DISTRICT. 2 DO-THRO' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DINDIGUL. 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PATTIVEERANPATTI POLICE STATION,DINDIGUL DISTRICT. 4 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1 CC to M/S. J.LAWRANCE Advocate SR.No.32828 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.12667 of 2011 Date :22/09/2011 PA/23.09.2011/2P/6C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/