BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Twenty Third day of September Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT THE HON`BLE MS.JUSTICE R.MALA CRL OP(MD) No.12722 of 2011 1. GANESAN 2. RAJ 3. VEERAPANDI ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED (RANKS NOT KNOWN) Vs THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE TIRUNELVELI TOWN POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT. (CRIME NO.594 OF 2011 ) ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. P.BHASKAR 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 apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 147, 294(b), 323 and 506(i) of I.P.C., in Crime No.594 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 innocent persons and a false case has been foisted against them under Sections 147, 294(b), 323 and 506(i) of I.P.C. He further submitted that the second and third petitioner names have not been mentioned in the F.I.R. He further submitted that the injured has been discharged from the hospital and the investigation is considerably over and hence, he prays for enlargement on anticipatory bail. 3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the case has been registered one named persons and others. He further submitted that the injured is taking treatment as out patient and the investigation is going on and hence, he prays for dismissal of this application. 4. Considering the rival submissions made by both sides and also considering the fact that the alleged occurrence has been taken place on 09.09.2011 and the first petitioner's name only has been mentioned in the F.I.R. but, the name of the petitioners 2 and 3 have not been mentioned in the F.I.R. and as per the version of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the injured is taking treatment as out patient and even https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ though the petitioners were not arrested, neither neither they interfered with the investigation nor absconded 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.IV, Tirunelveli and 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 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/- 23/09/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.IV, TIRUNELVELI. 2. -DO- THRO THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE TIRUNELVELI. 3. THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE TIRUNELVELI TOWN POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT. 4. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1. CC to M/S. P.BHASKAR Advocate SR.No.32866 SR : 28.09.2011 : 2P/6C ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.12722 of 2011 Date :23/09/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/