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.14203 of 2011 1 MOHAMMAD NAINAR 2 RAFFIQUE RAJA 3 JULIE 4 SHAHUL HAMEED 5 ARUN ..PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.2,3,4,5&7 Vs THE STATE EP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE KODAIKANAL POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL DISTRICT CRIME NO.591 OF 2011 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. R.DIWAKARAN Advocate For Respondent : Mr.K.S.DURAI PANDIAN., Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners are accused Nos.2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 in Cr.No.591 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police for offence under Sections 171(E), 147, 294(b), 353 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, the local body election for the Panchayat was held on 17.08.2011. The petitioners are supporters of a candidate in the election. At about 10.00 p.m, on that day, when the polling box was kept in the polling station, these accused forcibly entered into the polling booth, abused the Election Officer and criminally intimidated him. A complaint in this regard was preferred by the Officer on 18.08.2011 at 2.00 p.m. Based on the same, the present case has been registered. It is, on this apprehension, the petitioners are before this Court with this petition seeking anticipatory bail. 3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioners do not deserve for the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail, because they have involved in violence and prevented a Government servant from doing his official duty. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4.The learned counsel for the petitioners would refute the above allegations. According to him, the petitioners never indulged in any such violence. Due to motive between the petitioners and a rival group, at the instigation of the rival group, the present complaint has been preferred. He would further submit that the occurrence is stated to have been taken place on 17.08.2011, but a complaint was preferred only on 18.08.2011 at 2.00 p.m and for that, there is absolutely no explanation and that assumes much importance and creates a doubt in the case of the prosecution. 5.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would however oppose this petition. According to him, since the occurrence was happened during night time, the complainant could not go to the police station forthwith. He went to the police station only on the next day and preferred a complaint. Therefore, there is no delay. He further submitted that there is no motive for a Government Servant to give a false complaint against the petitioners. 6.I have considered the above submissions. 7.Admittedly, no injury was caused to anybody. It is alleged that the petitioners have only abused the de facto complainant. Apart from that, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners to the effect that at the instigation of the rivals of the petitioners, due to political motive, the present case has been registered also deserves to be considered. Above all, by this time, investigation would have been made substantial progress. In view of the above, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, but with stringent conditions: 8.Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail, in the event of arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kodaikanal, on each 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. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ TO 1.THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE KODAIKANAL 2.DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE DINDIGUL DISTRICT 3.THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI 4.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE KODAIKANAL POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL DISTRICT +1. CC to M/S. R.DIWAKARAN Advocate SR.No.37391 rl/6c – 3.11.2011 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.14203 of 2011 Date :01/11/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/