1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT (Criminal Jurisdiction) Tuesday, the First day of November Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice S.NAGAMUTHU CRL OP(MD) No.14189 of 2011 1 MURUGAN 2 GURUSAMY 3 SIVAKUMAR :PETITIONERS / ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3 -Vs- THE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOVILPATTI EAST POLICE STATION, KOVILPATTI, THOOTHUKUDI DISTRICT. ( CRIME NO.924 OF 2011 ) :RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. A.THIRUVADIKUMAR, Advocate For Respondent : MR.K.S.DURAIPANDIAN, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 Cr.P.C. ORDER:The Court Made the following order:- The petitioners are accused Nos. 1 to 3 in Cr.No.924 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police for offence under sections 294(b), 323 and 506(i) of I.P.C. Apprehending arrest, at the hands of the respondent police, the petitioners are before this court seeking anticipatory bail. 2.According to the case of the prosecution, due to political motive, the petitioners attacked the defacto complainant with hands and legs. He sustained simple injury and referred to the Government Hospital at Tirunelveli. After treatment, he has been now discharged. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioners would deny the above allegations. According to him, one Deivandran belongs to a different political party. In respect of the election, there was some quarrel between the said Deivandran and the people of the political party to which the petitioners also belong to. As a matter of fact, there is also a case against the said Deivandran. As a counter blast, according to the case of the prosecution, the present case has been registered. The learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that the petitioners are entitled for anticipatory bail. 4.I have considered the above submissions. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 5.Admittedly, the defacto complainant and the petitioners are belonged to different political parties. It is an admitted fact that there is another case against the defacto complainant, which is earlier in point of time. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the present case has been foisted against them. According to them, there are no serious injuries sustained by the defacto complainant. 6.Having regard to the above facts and circumstances, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, but with stringent conditions: 7.Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail, in the event of arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No:I, Kovilpatti, on each of 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 respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the petitioners shall report before the respondent police every day at 10.30 a.m. for a period of four weeks. The petitioners shall comply with the condition stipulated under section 438 Cr.P.C scrupulously. sd/- 01/11/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO: 1.The Judicial Magistrate No:I, Kovilpatti, Tuticorin District. 2.-Do- Thro' The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tuticorin. 3.The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 4.The Inspector of Police, Kovilpatti East Police Station, Kovilpatti, Tuticorin District. +1. CC to M/S. A.THIRUVADIKUMAR Advocate SR.No.37442. RP/02.11.11/2P/6C. ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.14189/11 Date :01/11/2011. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/