BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Seventh day of December Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH CRL OP(MD) No.15861 of 2011 MARIMUTHU @ LOORDHURAJ, ... PETITIONER / ACCUSED NO.1 Vs STATE: THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THATTARMADAM POLICE STATION,TIRUNELVELI DT. (CR.NO.243 OF 2011) ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. V.KANNAN Advocate For Respondent : M/S.K.S.DURAIPANDIAN, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner is arrayed as A1 and he was arrested the remanded to judicial custody on 18.11.2011 for the alleged commission of offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 420, 465, 454, 380, 474 and 506 (ii) I.P.C. and under Section 4 of Exorbitant Interest Ordinance Rules and Section 3 of T.N.P.P.D.L. Act and Section 3(I)(X) of S.C./S.T. Act @ under Section 294(b), 454 and 506(ii) I.P.C and Section 3(i)(V)(X)(XV) of S.C/S.T. act and Section 4 of T.N.P.W.H. Act 2002 in Crime No.243 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seeks bail. 2. Heard Mr.V.Kannan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.K.S.Duraipandian, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit in his argument that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence. He would further submit in his argument that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and hence, he prays for bail. 4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit in his argument that the petitioner abused the de-facto complainant by using filthy language and assaulted him and demanding more money towards interest and by using his caste against him. He would further submit in his argument that the investigation is offing and if for any reason, the petitioner is entitled for bail, stringent condition may be imposed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5. Considering the submission made on both sides, I could see that there is no bad antecedent against the petitioner, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail on the following conditions. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on executing a separate 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, Sathankulam and on further condition that the petitioner should appear before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders. sd/- 07/12/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE SATHANKULAM, TIRUNELVELI DIST 2 -DO-THRO' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE TIRUNELVELI 3 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI 4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THATTARMADAM POLICE STATION,TIRUNELVELI DT. 5 THE SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL PRISON, PALAYAMKOTTAI +1. CC to M/S. V.KANNAN Advocate SR.No.42702 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.15861 of 2011 Date :07/12/2011 SMA/07.12.2011/7C/2P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/