BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Twenty Third day of December Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH CRL OP(MD) No.17059 of 2011 1 ESAKKIPANDI 2 MURUGAN ... PETITIONERS / ACCUSED (RANK NOT KNOWN) Vs STATE: REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE KALAKKADU POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI DT, CR NO. 365/2011 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. T.A.EBENEZER Advocate For Respondent : M/S.K.S.DURAIPANDIAN,ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners are the accused in Crime No.365 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police, for the offence under Sections 436 I.P.C r/w Section 4 of TNPPDL Act. The petitioners were arrested on 14.12.2011. They have come forward with this petition seeking bail. 2. Heard Mr.T.A.Ebenezer, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.K.S.Duraipandian, learned Additional Public Prosecutor 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 been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that the co-accused/A-2, who is on the same footing as that of the petitioner was granted bail. 4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit in his argument that the petitioners have been implicated in this case on the allegation that the petitioner along with some other accused set fire on the door of the VAO office and caused damage. He would further submit that if for any reason, the petitioners are released on bail, suitable conditions may be imposed. 5. I have considered the above submissions. 6. Considering the submissions made by both sides, I could see that the petitioners have been in judicial custody from 14.12.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and the co-accused had already been released on bail. Considering the above said facts and also considering the fact that the petitioners are also on the same footing as that of A-2, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, but with stringent conditions. 7. In the result, this petition is ordered and bail is granted to the petitioners on the following conditions: - (i) The Petitioners shall be enlarged on bail on each of them executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with two sureties each for a likesum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nanguneri; (ii) Each Petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand Only) to the credit of Crime No.365 of 2011 before the learned Magistrate concerned; and (iii) The petitioners shall report before the respondent police, everyday at 10.30 a.m. until further orders. sd/- 23/12/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NANGUNERI 2 -DO-THRO' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE TIRNELVELI 3 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI 4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE KALAKKADU POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI DT 5 THE SUEPRINTENDENT CENTRAL PRISON, PALAYAMKOTTAI +1. CC to M/S. T.A.EBENEZER Advocate SR.No.45576 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.17059 of 2011 Date :23/12/2011 SMA/23.12.2011/7C/2P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/