BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Nineteenth day of September Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT THE HON`BLE MS.JUSTICE R.MALA CRL OP(MD) No.12357 of 2011 1. THAKAIYA @ PRABHAKARAN 2. VIVEK ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.6 & 7 Vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE(L&O) C5, KARIMEDU POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT. (CRIME NO.1941 OF 2011 ) ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. B.JEYAKUMAR Advocate For Respondent : MR.A.RAMAR, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners/Accused Nos.6 and 7 apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 147,148,341,365,294(b) and 506(ii) I.P.C. in Crime No.1941 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail. 2.The learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are arrayed as A6 and A7 in Crime No.1941 of 2011 and a false case has been foisted against them. According to the prosecution, the petitioners and his friend waylaid the de-facto complainant and threatened him with dire consequences that they would put an end to his life and the case has been registered against them on 08.08.2011 under Sections 147,148,341,365,294(b) and 506(ii) I.P.C. and hence they pray for anticipatory bail. 3.Refuting the same, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the de-facto complainant has given a complaint in Crime No.181 of 2011 for the offence alleged to be taken place on 22.01.2011 and the case has been registered in several provisions, but without including the Section 307 IPC. Subsequently it was included. Because of enmity, the accused waylaid the de-facto complainant and made a criminal intimidation and the occurrence took place on 06.07.2011 and the complaint given on 08.08.2011 and the case has been registered on 08.08.2011 and the investigation is at early stage. He further submits that A6 is having two previous cases and A7 is having one previous case and A1 is an influenced person and the investigation is going on and hence he prays for dismissal of this application. 4.Considering the rival submissions made on either side and as per the version of the learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor it could be seen that for the alleged occurrence taken place on 22.01.2011, the case in Crime No.181 of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2011 was registered and in that also the petitioners are arrayed as accused. Then, the de-facto complainant himself moved the Court to include the Section 307 IPC in that case and that application was allowed and the said Section has been included and hence it is alleged that these petitioners along with other accused had waylaid the de-facto complainant and made the criminal intimidation and wrongfully restraining and abusing filthy language on 06.07.2011, but the complaint was given only on 08.08.2011. Hence, there is a delay in preferring the complaint, but no explanation was given in the FIR. Furthermore, the case has been registered on 08.08.2011 and even though the first petitioner is having two previous cases and the second petitioner is having one previous case and even though the petitioners were not arrested they neither interfered with the investigation nor absconding 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 No.V, Madurai, Madurai District, and each of them 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 Magistrate concerned 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, the petition for anticipatory bail stands dismissed. sd/- 19/09/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.V, MADURAI. 2.-DO- THRO THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MADURAI. 3. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE(L&O) C5, KARIMEDU POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT. 4. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1. CC to M/S. B.JEYAKUMAR Advocate SR.No.32131 SR : 21.09.2011 : 2p/6c ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.12357 of 2011 Date :19/09/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/