BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Twenty Sixth day of August Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT THE HON`BLE MS.JUSTICE R.MALA CRL OP(MD) No.11382 of 2011 1. CHINNAIAN, 2. THANGARAJU, 3. BOOTHAPATHY, 4. CHANDRAN @ CHANDRASEKAR, 5. LOGANATHAN, 6. SELVARAJ, 7. RAVIKUMAR, ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED Vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THOTTIYAM POLICE STATION, TRICHY DISTRICT. CRIME NO.224/2011 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.V.ILLANCHEZIAN Advocate For Respondent : MR.A.RAMAR, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners are arrayed as accused and the 1st petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 14.08.2011 and the petitioners 2 to 7 were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 13.08.2011 for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 447, 324 and 506(ii) I.P.C. r/w 3(1) of Tamil Nadu Property Damages and Loss Prevention Act, 1992 in Crime No.224 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek bail. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the first accused has purchased the property under the sale deed dated 14.07.2010 and since the property is dilapidated condition, he demolished the same and hence, the defacto complainant, who is the rivalry for purchasing the same property, come forward this complaint. He further submitted that the injured has already been discharged from the hospital and the investigation is considerably over and hence, he prays for enlargement on bail. 3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the building was damaged by the petitioners by using JCB and the damaged wall worth about more than Rs.50,000/- and the investigation is going on. He https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ fairly conceded that the injured has already been discharged from the hospital and hence, he prays for the dismissal of this application. 4. Considering the rival submissions made by both sides and also considering the fact that the first petitioner has purchased the property on 14.07.2010, after that he was put in possession and since the defacto complainant, without any title attempted to interfere with the possession, the petitioner has obtained an order of interim injunction in I.A.No.680 of 2011 in O.S.No.590 of 2011 and the injured has already been discharged from the hospital and the investigation is going on and civil case is pending, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioners with certain conditions. 5. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on 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 Judicial Magistrate, Musiri and on further condition that the petitioners shall report before the Court concerned daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders. sd/- 26/08/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MUSIRI. 2. -DO- THRO THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, TRICHY. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, TRICHY. 4. THE OFFICER IN CHARGE, SUB JAIL, MUSIRI. 5. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THOTTIYAM POLICE STATION, TRICHY DISTRICT. 6. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1. CC to M/S.V.ILLANCHEZIAN Advocate SR.No.29220 SR : 26.08.2011 : 2p/8c ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.11382 of 2011 Date :26/08/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/