BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Fourteenth day of December Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH CRL OP(MD) No.16235 of 2011 R. ANANDAN ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 Vs STATE REP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE PAPPANADU POLICE STATION, THANJAVUR DISTRICT, CRIME NO. 202/2011 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. G.KARNAN Advocate For Respondent :Mr.K.S.DURAIPANDIAN Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) For Intervenor : M/s.E.UDHAYA, Advocate PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner/A1 apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 294(B), 427, 324 and 307 I.P.C. in Crime No.202 of 2011, on the file of the respondent police and hence, seeks anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2.Heard Mr.G.Karnan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms.E.Udhaya, learned counsel appearing for the intervenor and Mr.K.S.Duraipandian, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit in his argument that the petitioner is ranked as A1 in the said case and the petitions filed by the petitioner in two earlier occasions were withdrawn by the petitioner and the petitioner was granted interim anticipatory bail by this Court for taking charge of the Panchayat Board President and now, the petitioner has to function as Panchayat Board President and the co-accused have been released on bail and were put in condition to stay at Tiruppur. 4.He would further submit that the petitioner, being elected as Panchayat Board President, has to discharge his duties and the injured persons have already been discharged from the hospital and calm is prevailing at the place of occurrence and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ therefore, there is no question of likelihood of any commotion, if anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner. He would further submit in his argument that the circumstances have been changed and hence the petitioner may be granted anticipatory bai. 5.The learned counsel appearing for the intervenor would submit in her argument that the petitioners filed earlier were rejected on two occasions and thee is no change of circumstances in this case and the other co-accused are still absconding and only two of them have been granted regular bail after their arrest and the petitioner, who is the cause for the entire incident, may not be granted anticipatory bail. 6.The learned Public Prosecutor would submit in his argument that the co-accused , who were arrested, were granted bail by this Court and they were put in condition to stay Tiruppur and the place of occurrence has become normal and the injured has been discharged from the hospital and the investigation is pending and if for any reason, this Court is inclined grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner , stringent conditions may be imposed. 7.Considering the submissions made on either side, I could see that on an earlier occasion, this Court had granted interim anticipatory bail to the petitioner for getting himself sworn in the Panchayat Board President and thereafter, no regular anticipatory bail has been granted. Now, the petitioner has come forward with this anticipatory bail application stating that he is under the obligation of discharging of his duties as Panchayat Board President and he has got permanent root in the Society and permanent residence in the town and he would not abscond and he would co-operate with the investigation. 8.Considering the said circumstances, I could see that the place of occurrence has become normal and the injured persons have already been discharged from the hospital and I could find change of circumstances and the presence of the petitioner/A1 can be secured by imposing suitable conditions. Even though the other co-accused have been imposed with conditions to reside at Tiruppur, the present petitioner being the Panchayat Board President is directed to stay at Trichy for appearing before the Contonment Police Station daily in the morning by 10.30 a.m. with the permission to do his work as Panchayat Board President during that period. 9.Accordingly, the petitioner/A1 is directed to be released on bail, in the event of his arrest or on his appearance before the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrte, Orathanadu, on 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 District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Orathanadu and on further condition that the petitioner shall stay at Trichy with the permission to do his duty as Panchayat President and appear before the Trichy Contonment Police Station daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders. The petitioner shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Scrupulously . https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 10.The petitioner shall appear before the concerned Magistrate within a period of 15 days from the date on which the order copy is made ready, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail stands dismissed. sd/- 14/12/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1.THE DISTRICT MUNSIF CUM JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE ORATHANADU 2.DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE THANJAVUR DISTRICT 3.THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, TRICHY CANTONMENT POLICE STATION, TRICHY DISTRICT 4.THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI 5.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE PAPPANADU POLICE STATION, THANJAVUR DISTRICT +1. CC to M/S. G.KARNAN Advocate SR.No.43679 rl/7c – 15.12.2011 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.16235 of 2011 Date :14/12/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/