1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 17.11.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH Crl.O.P.(MD).No.12543 of 2011 N.Rajakumar ...petitioner -Vs- 1.State through Inspector of Police, South Police Station, Thoothukudi, In Crime No.693 of 2011 2.S.Murugesh ...Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to cancel the bail order passed in Cr.M.P.No.2525 of 2011 dated 05.09.2011 pending on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi in Crime No.693 of 2011 pending on the file of the South Police Station, Thoothukudi. For petitioner : Mr.P.Natarajan For Respondents : Mr.P.Kannithevan Government Advocate Crl. Side) for R1 Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar for R2 O R D E R This petition has been filed to cancel the bail order passed in Cr.M.P.No.2525 of 2011, dated 05.09.2011, pending on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi, in Crime No.693 of 2011, pending on the file of the South Police Station, Thoothukudi. 2. Heard Mr.P.Natarajan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.P.Kannithevan, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing on behalf of the first respondent and Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar, learned counsel for the second respondent. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit in his argument that the second respondent is ranked as 6th accused in the case, in which the son of the petitioner/defacto complainant, was kidnapped for demanding the ransom and fortunately, the said victim boy was saved and was rescued and thereafter, the accused persons were arrested and remanded to judicial custody. 4. He would further submit that the reason given by the learned Sessions judge for granting bail was to the effect that the victim boy could not identify the second respondent/A6., even though he was not present at the house of the victim and he was not at site with the victim boy. He would further submit in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 his argument that after obtaining bail, the second respondent/6th accused, came to the street of the petitioner and smoking cigarette in front of the house of the petitioner and it would pose a threat to the victim boy and it would be amounting to tamper the witness and the second respondent is deemed to have violated the bail conditions. Therefore, the bail may be revoked or cancelled. 5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit in his argument that the second respondent was granted bail by the learned Sessions Judge and he was complying with the condition as imposed against him and thereafter, the conditions were relaxed and there is no complaint received from the petitioner/defacto complainant to the effect that the second respondent was threatening the petitioner or his son, victim boy by smoking cigarette in front of the house of the petitioner. 6. The learned counsel for the second respondent would submit in his argument that the allegations made in the affidavit filed by the petitioner are not sufficient for cancelling the bail and the petitioner did not aver that the second respondent had violated any conditions nor he has not complied with any conditions imposed against him in the bail order. He would further submit that the alleged violation by the act of threatening by smoking cigarette in front of the house of the victim has not been substantiated by giving any complaint against the second respondent/A6 to the first respondent police and if it is really done by the second respondent, it would have been complained. 7.He would further submit in his argument that the merits in which, the learned Sessions Judge has come to the conclusion, cannot be agitated at this stage, since it was based upon the sound principles and therefore, the bail granted to the second respondent need not be cancelled. 8. Considering the submissions made by all the parties, I could see that the second respondent was arrayed as 6th accused in the case and the main accused A1 to A4 were in judicial custody and another accused viz., A5 was released on bail by the learned Sessions Judge. It is also admitted that the second respondent was imposed with certain conditions and those conditions were relaxed and now the petitioner has not appeared before the respondent police as the conditions imposed were already relaxed. However, the petitioner has stated in his affidavit that the second respondent in a threatening attitude had came to the street of the petitioner and was standing in front of the house of the petitioner and was smoking. The alleged threatening said to have made by the second respondent was a passing gesture. However, if the said gesture is considered as true the victim boy is being a small child, aged about 4 1/2 years would be put in a trauma and it would become necessary to protect the interest of the petitioner and the victim boy without affecting the personal liberty of the petitioner obtained through the bail order issued by the learned https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 Sessions Judge. Therefore, this Court is inclined to impose a condition against the second respondent to be away from Tutocorin till such time the Court feels. For that purpose, this Court, directs the second respondent as a condition attached to the bail, to stay at Madurai and to appear before the Thallkulam Police Station, Madurai daily twice i.e., 10.30. a.m. and 5.30 p.m. until further orders. When such a condition is imposed, there is no necessity of cancelling the bail granted in favour of the 2nd respondent. 9. With the aforesaid observation, this petition is disposed of. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(AS) /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar To 1.The Principal Sessions Judge, Tuticorin. 2.The Inspector of Police, South Police Station, Thoothukudi, 3.The Inspector of Police, Tallakulam Police Station, Madurai. 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Madurai. arul rl/5 c- 29.11.2011 Crl.O.P.(MD).No.12543 of 2011 17.11.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/