1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Third day of August Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice R.MALA CRL OP(MD) No.9087 of 2011 1.ANTHAR @ ANTHREYA 2.PALANI ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 & 2 Vs THE STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE PANANGUDI POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT. ( CRIME NO.353 OF 2011 ) ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. G. THALAIMUTHARASU Advocate For Respondent : MR. A.RAMAR, Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 294(b),324 and 506(ii) IPC, in Crime No.353 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail. 2.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a case has been filed against the petitioners under Sections 294(b),324 and 506(ii) IPC in Crime No.353 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and the alleged occurrence is taken place on 17.07.2011 and a complaint was given on 18.07.2011 and the investigation is considerably over. He further submits that the injured has already been discharged from the hospital and now the petitioners apprehend arrest and hence, they prayed for enlargement on anticipatory bail. He repeatedly submits that even though the injured discharged from the Government hospital, he was taking treatment in a private hospital. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the de-facto complainant is the adjacent land owner of the first petitioner herein. On the date of occurrence, when the first petitioner cutting down the tree in his land, on that account a wordy quarrel arose between the petitioners and the de-facto complainant. Consequently, the petitioners attacked the de- facto complainant by hands and caused simple injuries and hence he prays for dismissal of this application. 4.Considering the alleged occurrence took place on 17.7.2011 at 16.30 hours i.e. 04.30 p.m; that a complaint was given only on 18.07.2011 at 17.30 hours i.e. 05.30 p.m after 24 hours of delay, the injured was also discharged from the Government Hospital, there was no document to show that the injured is taking treatment in private hospital and even though the petitioners were not arrested, they neither interfered with the investigation nor absconded from the jurisdiction, 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, Valliyoor, 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 Judicial Magistrate Valliyoor, 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, anticipatory bail petition stands dismissed. sd/- 03/08/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, VALLIYOOR 2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE TIRUNELVELI 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE PANANGUDI POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT. 4 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1. CC to M/S. G. THALAIMUTHARASU Advocate SR.No.25847 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.9087 of 2011 Date :03/08/2011 TR : 05.08.2011: 3p/6c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/